IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5404 of 2007 Between: Thadiboina Devara Ankamma .. Petitioner AND Tadiboina Sanjeeva Rao .. Respondent Petition against the order dated 05-10-2007 in E.P. No.974 of 2006 in O.S. No.2547 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate representing Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No.974 of 2006 in O.S. No.2547 of 2004 on 05-10- 2007 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The execution petition was filed for attachment and sale of the execution petition schedule immovable property of the judgment-debtor/revision petitioner and the objection of the revision petitioner for selling the undivided one-fifth share in the house property is on the ground of the house being an ancestral house, in which the other members of the family also have a right by inheritance. The executing Court after examining P.W.1 and R.W.1, passed the impugned order referring to the order passed in E.A. No.390 of 2007 at the instance of the children of the judgment- debtor, wherein only the one-fifth undivided share of the judgment- debtor was ordered to be attached and sold. Having found no legal impediment for such a course of action, the executing Court ordered sale notice to the judgment-debtor in respect of the said property. The said order is sought to be challenged herein on the ground of non-liability of the one-fifth undivided share in the execution petition schedule property for sale and it is sought to be contended that unless the property is divided and demarcated, it cannot be sold. Incidentally, it was also sought to be claimed that the calculation memo filed by the decree-holder is not reflecting the payments made by the judgment-debtor. The earlier execution petition, in which the judgment-debtor was already sent to civil prison, was also referred to. Pending the civil revision petition, interim suspension was granted in C.R.P.M.P. No.7149 of 2007 subject to deposit of one-fourth of the execution petition amount by the judgment-debtor within eight weeks. The deposit is claimed to have been made and the interim suspension is said to be continuing in force. Sri S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor and Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder are heard. That the execution petition schedule house originally belongs to the family of the judgment-debtor, is admitted and though the execution petition schedule is as though it is in respect of the entire house, admittedly the children of the judgment-debtor succeeded in E.A. No.390 of 2007 to restrict the property to be sold to only one-fifth undivided share of the judgment-debtor. No provision or principle of law has been brought to notice, which prohibits sale of such undivided share of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree and any earlier execution by way of arrest and detention cannot stand in the way of the present execution, if the execution petition amount is still due under the decree. Nothing has been placed before the executing Court or this Court to show that the amount claimed in the execution petition is incorrect and hence, the objections against ordering sale notice cannot be sustained. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is an ancestral residential house of the entire family and the judgment-debtor had deposited one-fourth of the execution petition amount within the time stipulated by this Court in its interim order and he requested that a reasonable time be granted before the execution proceeds further to enable the judgment-debtor and the members of the family to make efforts to discharge the decree debt. Grant of two months time will be reasonable and just under such circumstances. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs, but the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor is granted two months time to discharge the decree debt from the date of communication of this order to the executing Court and in default of so discharging the decree debt within the said time, the execution shall be further proceeded with. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-07-2010 Svv