THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.61 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. As can be seen from the record, both the courts found that the sale of the property was after attachment. However, the decretal amount has been deposited and the F.S. Memo was recorded. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the society, which is the second respondent herein, has specifically admitted in the sale deed that all the debts were cleared and there is no liability. Such a statement between the appellant and the second respondent does not bind the decree-holder since the decree was obtained long prior to the purchase by the appellant. Merely because the decree holder kept quiet for a long time in not filing the execution petition, it cannot deprive him of the benefits. There is no collusion between the decree holder and also the second respondent-Judgment Debtor. Probably to proceed with the sale of the schedule properties it would have been very difficult for the decree holder for realisation of the money. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the undertaking given by the second respondent that all the debts were cleared involves any question of law, to the benefit of the appellant. However, the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the second respondent for the amount paid to the decree holder towards satisfaction of the decree. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 15-07-2011 TSNR