IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT NO.154 OF 2011 Between : Nagubandi Venkata Rambabu ...APPELLANT A N D Adapa Satyanarayana and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU APPEAL SUIT NO.154 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit, under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule I of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the order, dated 21.09.2010 in E.A.No.215 of 2007 in E.P.No.20 of 2003 in O.S.No.14 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC to declare that the E.P.Schedule property is not liable for attachment, was dismissed. 2. Respondent No.1 herein filed Original Suit No.14 of 1992 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court on 18.02.2002. In pursuance of the decree, respondent No.1 filed the Execution Petition No.20 of 2003 under Order XXI Rules, 54, 64, and 66 to attach the E.P. Schedule property and put to sale for realization of the decreetal amount. The appellant herein filed claim petition i.e., Execution Application No. 215 of 2007, and in the said claim petition, he stated that originally the property belongs to the deceased borrower and after his death, respondent No.3 herein /Judgment debtor No.3, being the son, acquired the schedule property and sold away the same under Ex.A.1 to the appellant herein. However, the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that since respondent No.3 / judgment debtor No.3 is not having any right to execute Ex.A.1, the appellant is not having any right to convey the title over the suit schedule property. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Originally the property sought to be attached and sold in execution proceedings owned by the father of judgment debtor No.3. Father of judgment debtor No.3 died intestate leaving behind the respondents herein as legal heirs. Therefore, judgment debtor No.3 has no absolute right to convey the title in respect of schedule property to any third party. At best he is having a share in the property. Further, claim petitioner is an agreement holder. It does not confer any title to him. The appellant herein is sold the E.P. schedule property to one Challa Vijaya Kumar under a registered sale deed, dated 07.05.2007 under a registered document No.1060. By virtue of this document, appellant already sold away the property in question. Hence, he has no interest or title to the property. 4. Admittedly, the appellant/claim petitioner has no right, title or interest in the property as he has no saleable interest. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the relief. 5. In view of the same, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. However, this Judgment will not affect the rights of the third party who said to have purchased the property from the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 21, 2011. YVL