HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.M.S.A. No. 29 of 2008 DATED: 05.02.2010 Between: 1. Kummara Yellala Sanjanna 2. Kummara Yellala Siva Ramudu .. Appellants/ Appellants in A.S And 1. Official Receiver 2, Lorrygari Sankar Reddy .. Respondents/ Respondents in A.S JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 13.12.2007 delivered in A.S. No.44 of 2007 by II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby the Appeal Suit preferred by the appellants herein against the order dated 06.04.2002 passed in I.P. No.44 of 2000 by the Official Receiver, Kadapa, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment under appeal. The appellants, who are debtors, were adjudged as insolvents in I.P. No.44 of 2000 and their property was vested in the official receiver, Kadapa, for administration under the Provisional Insolvency Act, 1920. The property comprises an agriculture house also, which according to the petitioners, was exempted from attachment under Section 60 C.P.C. and the property, being a farm house, is meant for the agricultural purpose of the debtors, and consequently, does not vest in Official Receiver in view of Section 28 of the Act. The Official Receiver sold the property in auction sale and the same was purchased by the 2nd respondent. The appellants-debtors questioned the same on several grounds including the one that the property, being an agricultural house, is exempt from attachment and does not vest in the Official Receiver, and therefore, not available for sale. The Official Receiver dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the debtors-insolvents filed A.S.No.44 of 2007, and the learned II Additional District Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the dispute as to whether or not agricultural house of the debtors-insolvents is liable to be exempted was the subject matter of A.S. No. 64 of 2006 which was pending. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2007, the present C.M.S.A. is filed. The appellants filed C.M.S.A.M.P. No.122 of 2009 seeking a direction to the Official Receiver to proceed with enquiry in I.A. No.16 of 2009 in I.P. No. 44 of 2000 and to re-deliver the sold item i.e. agricultural house by setting aside the auction sale in that petition. The appellants herein filed a copy of the judgment dated 25.03.2008 in A.S. No.64 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur wherein it was held that the agricultural house belonging to the appellants herein, who are also the appellants in A.S. No. 44 of 2007, was exempt from attachment, and therefore, it did not vest in the Official Receiver, and is not liable for administration by the Official Receiver, and the said judgment has admittedly become final. In view of the same, the judgment delivered in A.S.No.44 of 2007, which was dismissed mainly on the ground that the dispute was pending adjudication in A.S. No.64 of 2006, is no longer sustainable as A.S. No.64 of 2006 was allowed holding that the property, being agricultural house belonging to the appellants herein, is not liable for attachment of sale and did not vest in the Official Receiver at all. It is therefore clear from the material on record that the order passed by the Official Receiver insofar as it relates to agricultural house belonging to the appellants herein, is not sustainable, and is therefore held liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. The Official Receiver shall take necessary steps for re-delivery of the agriculture house in favour of the appellants. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 5th February, 2010 bcj