IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5116 OF 2008 Between : Bandla Kavitha ... PETITIONER A N D Gaddam Venkata Seshamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5116 OF 2008 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the order, dated 08.08.2008, in E.P.No.185 of 2006 in O.S.No.33 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder and whereby, the Execution Petition filed for attachment of E.P schedule mentioned property for sale and realization of the E.P. amount, was allowed by issuing attachment warrant under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC. 2. The suit O.S. No.33 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,30,398/-. After adducing evidence by both sides, the suit was decreed with costs. As the defendants did not choose to pay amount, the plaintiff filed the Execution Petition and the same was allowed. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that originally the property belongs to one Jana Ramanamma, mother of Jana Srinivasulu and the said property was devolved upon the petitioner and other family members and, therefore, the property sought for attachment of sale is not the absolute property of the petitioner/judgment debtor and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. The decree holder was examined as a witness. Except giving a suggestion that the E.P. schedule property is not liable for attachment, nothing has been elicited. The petitioner relied upon Exs.R.1 to R.3. Ex.R.1 is certified copy of Registered Sale deed vide document No.870/1963, dated 09.05.1963, which stands in the name of Jana Ramanamma. The decree for realization of suit amount from the estate of Sri Jana Srinivasulu has become final. If the decree holder proves the property which has to be attached is devolved upon judgment debtors, the attachment can be effected and thereafter the property under attachment can be sold. It is stated by R.W.1 that E.P. schedule property is not the estate of deceased; that the property was purchased by paternal grand mother under Ex.A.1; that after the death, the property was devolved upon judgment debtors under a registered Settlement Deed, dated 02.02.2006 and by virtue of Settlement deed, Dated 02.02.2006, the property in question devolved upon her. 6. The suit is filed against the judgment debtors in the year 2002. Suit was decreed on contest on 28.04.2006. R.W.1 filed the written statement only denying the execution of promissory note by her deceased father during his life time. Exs.R.2 and R.3 brought into existence on one day. By then R.W.1 very well knows about pendency of suit. Therefore, the possibility of nominal transactions under Exs.R.2 and R.3 to defeat the rights of plaintiff, can not be ruled out. 7. The petitioner knowing fully well about the suit transaction, brought into existence Exs.R.2 and R.3 Registered Partition Deed and Registered Settlement Deed respectively, so as to defeat the rights of respondent No.1/decree holder. 8. Therefore, basing on the evidence on record, it clearly held that in-anticipation of the suit proceedings only, Ex.R.3 was brought into existence. So the objection raised by the petitioner that the E.P. schedule property is not liable for attachment cannot be accepted. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly ordered for attachment of E.P. schedule property on payment of batta and the said order needs no interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 04, 2011. YVL