IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.668 OF 2007 Date:01-03-2011 Between:- D.Hemalatha and others ..Appellants/Plaintiffs And Mannam Ugandharaiah and another .. Respondents/Defendants JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2007, in O.S.No.62 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereunder and whereby, the suit was partly decreed holding that the appellants 1, 3 to 7/plaintiffs 1, 3 to 7, 1st defendant and legal representatives of 2nd plaintiff were entitled 1/8th share each in respect of all the other items except item No.3 of plaint schedule property. In respect of item No.3 of plaint schedule property, no decree is granted. No appeal is preferred in respect of granting decree by any one of the parties. 2. Heard. 3. The plaintiffs filed the present appeal aggrieved by the denial of relief prayed in so far as item No.3 of plaint schedule property. It is not in dispute before this Court that one Poli Naidu filed O.S.No.163 of 1982 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi against the 1st respondent/1st defendant, which was decreed. Then the said Poli Naidu filed E.P.No.29 of 1985 for realization of the decretal amount. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Poli Naidu died. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant came on record as legal representative of Poli Naidu. The said execution proceedings were filed for sale of item No.3 of the plaint schedule property for realization of the decretal amount in O.S.No.163 of 1982. When the Court Amin went to the spot to deliver the possession of item No.3 of the plaint schedule property to the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant, the appellants/plaintiffs objected him and they filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati against the auction purchaser and judgment debtor. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 27.04.2000. 4. From the evidence on record, it is clear that item No.3 of plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1. D.W.1 in his evidence stated that defendant No.1 got item No.3 of plaint schedule property under a registered settlement deed dated 02.10.1967 and patta stands in the name of defendant No.1. Even P.w.1 admitted that her father (defendant No.1) acquired item No.3 of plaint schedule property by virtue of settlement deed dated 02.10.1967 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. When item No.3 of plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of defendant No.1, it is not liable for partition. The trial Court rightly dismissed the suit in relation to item No.3 of plaint schedule property. 5. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed, leaving open the remedies available to the appellants/plaintiffs under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 1st March, 2011 AMD/KSP THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.No.668 OF 2007 Date:01-03-2011 AMD/KSP