THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1759 of 2004 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is the mother of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners and the respondents are living separately. Petitioners filed O.S.No.7 of 1996 in the Family Court, Tirupathi, claiming maintenance. A decree was passed for a sum of Rs.300/-, in favour of the 1st petitioner, and Rs.150/-, each, in favour of petitioners 2 to 4, way back on 07.02.1997. The decree became final. The petitioners filed E.P.No.6 of 2003 for recovery of arrears of maintenance, amounting to Rs.74,000/-. An item of immovable property, being House No.20-1-467/c Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati, was sought to be proceeded against. On finding that the property was sold by the Tirupati Cooperative Urban Bank (for short ‘the Bank’) and a sum of Rs.80,000/-, being the sale proceeds, is available, the petitioners initiated steps, vis-à-vis the said amount. The 1st respondent filed E.A.No.40 of 2003, under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., in the E.P. She claimed that the schedule property is owned by her, and through a deed of settlement, she retained life interest for herself and gave vested reminder to the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that since the property was mortgaged to the Bank, and thereafter, it was brought to sale, she has absolute right over the surplus amount that was available with the Bank, after adjusting the loan amount. The petitioners opposed the E.A. Through its order, dated 11.03.2004, the Executing Court apportioned the amount of Rs.80,000/- equally between the petitioners and the 1st respondent. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The only question that arises for consideration is, as to, Whether the Executing Court was justified in apportioning the amount of Rs.80,000/- into equal shares between the petitioners, on the one hand and the 1st respondent, on the other hand? It is no doubt true that the 1st respondent was the original owner of the property. However, she settled the same on the 2nd respondent by retaining life interest. If the property were to have been in tact and sought to be sold in the execution, the 1st respondent would certainly have been justified in resisting the sale. The fact, however, remains that the respondents have jointly mortgaged the property to a Bank and the same was sold for recovery of the dues. After the loan is cleared, a sum of Rs.80,000/- is still available. The 1st respondent hardly holds any interest, vis-à-vis the property. The reason is that by giving her consent for mortgage of the property and subsequent sale, she has surrendered her life interest. Therefore, the Executing Court was not justified in holding that the 1st respondent is entitled for equal share, in the available amount. The 2nd respondent did not put forward any contention on his behalf. The amount sought to be recovered by the petitioners is Rs.74,000/-. This Court is of the view that, ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are held entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- by the 1st respondent. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed in part, and it is directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive Rs.70,000/-, out of Rs.80,000/-, which is available with the Tirupati Cooperative Urban Bank, and the 1st respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:24.08.2009. GJ