THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.5723 of 2008 Date: 08.07.2010 Between: Vempati Naryana Rao … Petitioner AND Siripurapu Venkata Rama Rao and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.5723 of 2008 ORDER: The widow of the judgment debtor in O.S.No.207 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur is the petitioner. The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.102 of 2007 seeking execution of the decree dated 17.08.2006 in O.S.No.207 of 2000 against the petitioner herein and her children, being the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment debtor, seeking attachment and sale of the EP schedule property for realization of the decretal amount. The petitioner herein, being respondent 2 in the said EP, filed a counter stating that the EP schedule property belonged to her individually and that the judgment debtor had nothing to do with the same. It was her case that the said property was given to her by her father and that the documents marked as Exs.B.1 & B.2 evidenced the same. Ex.B.1 is the tax receipt reflecting the name of the petitioner and Ex.B.2 is the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Dommeru stating to the effect that the petitioner alone paid the house tax in respect of the EP schedule property from 1995-96 onwards. In spite of the specific stand adopted by the petitioner and the evidence adduced by her, the executing Court held that it could be presumed that the EP schedule property belonged to the deceased judgment debtor, the husband of the petitioner and that she had succeeded to the said property after his demise. Holding so, the executing Court said that the property could be sold for realization of the decretal amount. Perusal of the order passed by the executing Court reveals that the burden was placed on the petitioner to prove that the property originally belonged to her father and thereafter devolved upon her. This approach on the part of the executing Court is unsustainable. It was for the decree holder to demonstrate that the property sought to be brought to sale belonged to the judgment debtor. Once the widow of the judgment debtor stated that she was the owner of the said property and supported the same with documentary evidence, it was for the decree holder to disprove her claim. On the other hand, except for making a bald averment that the EP schedule property belonged to the judgment debtor no documentary evidence was filed by him to prove the same. The presumption drawn by the executing Court is therefore laden with legal infirmity and cannot be sustained. The order dated 05.11.2008 in E.P.No.102 of 2007 in O.S.No.207 of 2000 is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 08.07.2010 Isn