IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1427 of 2008 Between: Thammineni Chinna Rangaiah ..Petitioner AND Kakarla Bharathi .. Respondent ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.32 of 2006 in O.S.No.42 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda, dated 05-02-2008. The Execution Petition was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of the decree debt by way of arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison alleging the judgment debtor/ revision petitioner to be having movable and immovable properties and means to pay the decree debt. The revision petitioner claimed to be having no means and to be only an agricultural labourer. During the enquiry into the E.P., PW.1 and RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P.1 and R.1 and R2 were marked. In the impugned order, the Executing Court referred to the rival contentions and the evidence of the parties and noted that the revision petitioner was proved to be having Ac.0.20cents of site in Velupumudugu village, the oral gift of which to his daughter was not valid. T h e Executing Court also considered that such property, which is not exempted from attachment in execution of a decree in which the revision petitioner has saleable interest shows the revision petitioner to be having means. Consequently, a warrant under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure was directed to be issued. The said order is challenged on the ground that the site appurtenant to the residential house of the revision petitioner could not have been attached and sold and the daughter’s site of Ac.0.10cents, which was gifted to her, could not have been computed as means of the judgment debtor. Sri G. Shravan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions of the revision petitioner and desired the warrant to be recalled. The judgment debtor/revision petitioner was described as an agriculturist throughout and his occupation as an agriculturist is not denied or disputed. His being able bodied and healthy is also not in dispute and his capacity to earn as an agriculturist cannot be in doubt. That apart, the Executing Court found on positive evidence that the original ownership of Ac.0.20cents with the revision petitioner was proved and it is seen from the evidence for the revision petitioner itself that what all is sought to be contended is that out of the said land, Ac.0.10 cents were gifted to his daughter. The gift in favour of the daughter was found to be under a document, which cannot convey any title in the absence of registration and if the title still vests with the revision petitioner, he cannot claim to be having no saleable interest in the same. The analysis of the evidence by the Executing Court to conclude that the land is not exempted from attachment under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure needs no repetition and there is no reason to deviate from the reasonable conclusions arrived at on fact by t h e Executing Court, in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction herein. If so, the judgment debtor having means to satisfy the decree or a substantial portion thereof since the decree and neglecting to do so are evident and the Executing court cannot be faulted for ordering issuance of warrant of arrest. However, while granting an interim stay pending this revision, the judgment debtor was directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- to the credit of the Execution Petition within six weeks from the date of the order and the learned counsel submitted that such a deposit has been made. The judgment debtor can be given a reasonable time to pay the balance of the decree debt and subject to grant of such time, the execution has to be allowed to be proceeded in case of his default. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. But, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor is granted four (4) months time from the date of communication of this order to the Executing Court to pay the balance of the decree debt and in the event of default, the Executing Court is at liberty to proceed further with the execution in accordance with law on merits. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-07-2010 Ksn