( 1 ) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th September, 1981 under order 21 rule. 58 (4) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) partly accepting the claim/objection of the appellant.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that Smt. Satwant Kaur, respondent No. I obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 49,300. 00 with costs and interest against Ratan Kumar Shivnani, respondent No. 2. On 22nd May, 1980 she made an execution application for attachment of properties. The decree-holder also filed an affidavit dated 29th May, 1980 deposing that the moveable property detailed in the list belonged to the judgment-debtor. Warrant for attachment of moveable property was issued. On 7th June, 1980 various moveable properties were attached.

( 3 ) SHRI Vali Ram, appellant-objector, father of the judgment-debtor, filed an application under order 21 rule 58 read with Section 47 and 151 of the Code for delivery of the attached property to him on the ground that the property belonged to him and the judgment-debtor had no right, title or interest therein, that the attachment of the property of a third person was illegal and void. The objector has alleged that on 7th June, 1980 decreeholder with process server and about 20 persons carrying lathis, iron rods came to his house at about 1. 30 p. m. They broke open the outer door of his house, forcibily entered and surrounded him. The process server threatened to attach movable properties. The objector gave in writing that the judgment-debtor was not living in that house and the properties lying therein belonged to him. The movables as detailed in the list i e. Annexure a to the application, he alleges, were however attached, that there was jewellery and cash belonging to his wife, daughter and daughter in-law ia the locker of the almirah which was removed by the process server in spite of protest, that the decree-holder in 1978 had filed an eviction case against her tenant the judgment-debtor, on the ground for sub-letting and parting with possession, that the decree-holder knowing fully that the Judgment debtor was not residing and the objector was in occupation with properties belonging to him,got the property attached.

( 4 ) THE decree-holder in reply denied all t,he allegations. She has alleged that the objector along with his son has been residing on the ground floor and the judgment-debtor was tenant under her, that the objector produced receipts showing purchase of certain articles which were not attached, that the decree-holder got attached only properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder has admitted that in 1978 she had filed an eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting against the judgment-debtor but it was dismissed as withdrawn, on account of defect in the notice. The objector filed a rejoinder denying the allegations of the decree-holder.

( 5 ) THE Additional District Judge has held that the cash and ornaments lying in the almirah did not belong to the judgmsnt-debtor but to the objector and released the same. As regards other articles he observed as follows:

"as regards other articles attached, I find that the statement of the decree-holder Satwant Kaur is admissible and reliable, because she has been seeing Rattan Kumar using the same from the very beginning, he being tenant under her. Her statement is also supported by this fact that she did not get the property attached, of which the objector produced the receipts before the bailiff". Hence this first appeal.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-objector submits that the attached movable properties consist of Television, Ceiling Fans, Sofa Sets, Dining Table with Chairs, Steel Almirahs Geyser and Show Case, that these properties were inpossession of the judgment never-debtor at any material time, that the same have always been in possession of the objector, that the executing court did not apply its mind and passed amindless -order