THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2023 OF 2009 DATED: 05.10.2009 Between: Shaik Ibrahim .. Petitioner And Chalamcherla Renuka .. Respondent ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 16.03.2009 passed in E.P.No.65 of 2007 in O.S.No.80 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kavali. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent laid the suit O.S.No.80 of 2003 against the petitioner, for recovery of money on the foot of a registered mortgage deed, and obtained preliminary and final decrees. Since the petitioner-judgment debtor failed to satisfy the decrees, the respondent-decree holder filed the present E.P.No.65 of 2007, under Order 21 Rules 66 and 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court below to issue sale notice under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sell the petition schedule immovable property, which was attached before judgment, in public auction, and realize the decretal amount. Petitioner resisted the petition, by filing counter, stating that the petition schedule property was an assigned land, assigned in favour of his father under a D-Form patta, and, therefore, the same cannot be sold in realization of the decretal amount. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, allowed the petition by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner, during his lifetime, was assigned the petition schedule property under a D-Form patta dated 09.05.1987 and, being his legal heir, the petitioner mortgaged the said property with the respondent on 05.03.2002, by executing a registered mortgage deed. It is the case of the petitioner that the petition schedule property being the assigned property, the mortgage itself is void. But, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, as per clause (ii) (h) of condition 11 of the D-Form patta, alienation of the assigned land, by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease, is prohibited within ten years from the date of assignment, but, in the instant case, the petitioner mortgaged the property long after ten years of assignment and, therefore, the same is not barred by the statute or the conditions mentioned in the patta. Further, the Court below held that the Government is not claiming the property back, that there is no third party claim over the same and the judgment debtor, having obtained loan by executing registered mortgage deed in favour of the decree holder and suffered preliminary and final decrees, which have become final, cannot now contend that the mortgage is void and unenforceable. I am of the opinion that the Court below has passed a reasoned order, viewing the matter in right perspective, and has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 5th October, 2009. IBL