THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI S.A.NO.620 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed in CMA No.15 of 2006 dated 17-1-2007 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the order in E.A.No.124 of 2005 in E.P.No.37 of 1999 in O.S.No.329 of 1988 on the file of 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad was set aside. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants herein are decree holders-plaintiffs in O.S.No.329 of 1988. In the said suit, the respondents 1-3 herein filed E.A.124 of 2005 (claim petition) under Order 21, Rules 99 to 101 of CPC stating that they are the owners of 400 plus 286 square yards and that they are in possession of the same and as such, they cannot be dispossessed by the appellants herein on the ground that they purchased the said property through registered sale deeds dated 5.7.1990 and 20-07-1990. The appellants also questioned the sale deeds by filing O.S.No.892 & 893 of 1990. But, those suits were dismissed for default. In the claim petition (EA No.124 of 2005), the appellants herein filed counters opposing the claim of the respondents herein. The learned Senior Civil Judge, upon going into the entire material on record, dismissed the claim petition. Questioning the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed CMA No.15 of 2006 and the learned II Additional Chief Judge upon appreciating the material on record allowed the CMA and set aside the order in EA No.124 of 2005 and also observed that the decree in O.S.No.329 of 1988 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge is not operative against the claim petitioners. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. Heard and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the record goes to show that O.S.No.329 of 1988 filed by the appellants herein was decreed and pursuant to the said decree, they got a sale deed by way of filing execution petition and sought delivery of the property as if the property is in possession of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and a part of the property was delivered in favour of the appellants herein. However, pursuant to the orders passed in CRP No.2973 of 2001, the property was re- delivered to respondent Nos.1 to 3. It was observed by the learned appellate Judge, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 purchased the property without having knowledge of the agreement in favour of the appellants herein or about the pendency of the suit. It was also observed that the appellants having filed suit in O.S No.892 and 893 of 1990 seeking cancellation of sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein allowed those suits to be dismissed for default and the said dismissal of the suits became final. Thus, the learned Additional Chief Judge observed that the decree in O.S.No.329 of 1988 cannot bind on the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. It was also observed that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the property by virtue of Exs.A47 and A48 sale deeds and that as the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not parties to O.S.No.329 of 1988, they have every right to resist the execution of decree in O.S.No.329 of 1988. It is to be seen that when the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not parties to the suit in O.S. No.329 of 1988,they have every right to resist the execution of the said decree in the above suit and inasmuch as they purchased the property through registered sales i.e., Ex.A47 and A48. Ex.A49 and A50 would show that the respondents obtained sanctioned plan and permit for construction of a house from the Municipal Corporation and that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have shown that they are in possession of the property by way of filing Exs.A17 to A44 i.e., demand notices, payment receipts for payment of tax. The appellants herein have to file a fresh suit against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein seeking the relief which was sought by them. The learned appellant Judge has rightly so observed that a separate suit has to be filed and the conclusion arrived that the decree in O.S.NO.329 of 1988 is not operative against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein is purely based on appreciation of evidence on record. Apart from that, the grounds raised in the second appeal does not contain any substantial question of law and are based on facts which cannot be gone into the second appeal. Hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI rkk