1. The appellant is the claim petitioner in E.A. No.97 of 2007 in E.P. No.5 of 2006 in O.P. No.1711 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent to the claim petition is the decree holder and the 2nd respondent to the claim petition is the Judgment debtor no other than the son of the claim petitioner. The property undisputedly, originally, belonged to husband of the claim petitioner-cum-father of the judgment debtor.

2. It is in the execution of the motor accident claim decree by the award, the decree holder filed E.P.No.5 of 2006 for attachment of the immovable property claimed that of the judgment debtor, where he undisputedly resides, which is the claim petition schedule property. It is in fact as per the Amin’s report what the lower Court find rightly and not even despite from the submissions across the bar by both sides that the property was attachment not affected as there was a resistance caused to the attachment and the Amin returned the warrant from that resistance and before re-entrusting the warrant, if necessary, with police aid, the claim petition is preferred by the mother of t