HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5475 OF 2011 DATE: 23-12-2011 BETWEEN: Anupoju Swathi Kumari. - - - Petitioner/ Claim Petitioner. AND Satti Srinivasa Reddy and another. - - - Respondents/ Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5475 OF 2011 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order dated 18-01-2011, passed in E.A. No.296 of 2010 in E.P. No.34 of 2009 in O.S. No.322 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioner herein is the claim petitioner in E.A. No.296 of 2010. The second respondent is the mother of the petitioner herein. The first respondent is the decree holder. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No.322 of 2003 for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed after contest on 28-10-2005. During the pendency of the proceedings, the E.P. schedule property was attached in I.A. No.306 of 2003, then the first respondent herein filed E.P. No.34 of 2009 to sell the attached property. Then, the petitioner herein filed the claim petition raising objections. Her main contention is that the second respondent herein gifted the said schedule property to her under an un-registered gift deed dated 06-04-2001 and she has also claimed that the E.P. schedule property was originally assigned by the Government and D-Form patta was issued in the name of the second respondent and they constructed a thatched house over the E.P. schedule property and therefore the same cannot be sold in execution proceedings. The lower Court holding that the second respondent earlier admitted that E.P. schedule property belongs to her and that un- registered gift deed said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner cannot be admitted in evidence and that no evidence is produced to show that the house was constructed in the land assigned to the second respondent, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. There is no representation for the Petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly the property belongs to the second respondent and now a house has been constructed and the property was under attachment during the pendency of the suit and that the second respondent filed an application to raise the attachment, the said application was dismissed and the petitioner has been inducted to stall the proceedings and that the claim of the petitioner was not bona fide. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner herein filed a Xerox copy of the house site patta issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam vide R. Dis. No.169/88, dated 18-01-1988 which shows that the house site was assigned in the name of the second respondent herein with certain conditions. 6. Now it has to be seen whether the land assigned as house site can be attached or not? 7. Before that it has to be established whether the house site has been assigned in the name of second respondent. It appears that this D-Form patta was not filed before the lower Court. It is not clear under what circumstances it was not filed though the petitioner specifically averred in her petition that the house site was assigned in the name of her mother and D-Form patta was issued. 8. In the above circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to remand the matter to the lower Court and the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence and the petitioner herein may file the D-Form patta before the lower Court and the lower Court may dispose of the same in accordance with law without being un-influenced by any of the observations made in this Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Dated: 23-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 69 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5475 OF 2011 December, 23, 2011 DSH