THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4005 and 4012 of 2007 ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. Perused the entire material available on record. 2. Civil Revision Petition Nos.4005 and 4012 of 2007 are directed against the order, dated 13.07.2007, in E.P.No.97 of 2005 in O.S.No.275 of 2000 and E.P.No.91 of 2005 in O.S.No.518 of 1999, respectively, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, respectively. 3. Both the Execution Petitions were filed by the decree-holders under Order 21 Rules 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for sale of the petition schedule property that belongs to the judgment-debtors and the same were allowed by the Court below. 4. The petitioners and the first respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions are the judgment-debtors and decree-holders, respectively, in the Execution Petitions. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as decree-holder and judgment debtor, as arrayed in the respective Execution Petitions. 6. Though both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed in two different Execution Petitions in two different suits, the dispute involved is common and the controversial document also is the same and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 7. Both the suits were filed by the judgment-debtors for recovery of amount. Pursuant to the decrees passed therein, the above said Execution Petitions have been filed, in which a registered gift deed was produced and was marked as Ex.P-1 on behalf of the decree-holder, in E.P.No.91 of 2005 in O.S.No.518 of 1999, in view of the objection taken by the judgment-debtors that the petition schedule property that was sought to be brought to sale was an assigned land and therefore, it is not capable of being put to sale. 8. However, the said contention was effectively refuted by the decree-holder by pressing into service a registered gift deed under Ex.P-1. 9. In fact, the judgment-debtor had relied on Ex.R-1- patta and contended that since the petition schedule property is a patta land, the same cannot be brought to sale and on that ground, the judgment-debtor wanted to stall the proceedings of sale in the Execution Petitions. 10. The Court below had drawn a distinction between the document filed by the decree-holder under Ex.P-1 and the document relied on by the judgment- debtor under Ex.R-1 and categorically found that the property covered under Ex.R-1-patta is quite different from the petition schedule property covered by the registered gift deed under Ex.P-1. 11. It cannot be forgotten, in this regard, that the registered gift deed is an authenticated document, wherein the petition schedule property was shown as a private property. This aspect had been discussed by the Court below and it arrived at the conclusion that the petition schedule property that was sought to be brought to sale was only a private property, but not an assigned land. 12. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Court below, basing on the documents produced and marked before it, I do not feel it expedient to interfere with the impugned orders. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, passed by this Court, in the Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand vacated. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27th October 2009 DR