HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1742 of 2011 Date : 16-9-2011 Between : Yalagandula Bhulaxmi .. Petitioner And Nandula Achyutha Ramaiah .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri K. Narasimha Chari Counsel for respondent : Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary The court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 15-2-2011 in E.P.No.43/2009 in O.S.No.249/2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. The petitioner is the Judgment-debtor in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the suit amount. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent on 3-5-2006 for a sum of Rs.67,895/- along with interest. As the petitioner failed to satisfy the decree, the respondent filed E.P.No.43/2009 for recovery of Rs.1,02,779/-. The said execution petition was allowed by directing the E.P. schedule property to be sold for realization of the decretal amount. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. At the hearing, Sri K. Narasimha Charyi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is an agricultural coolie and that the site over which she has constructed the building is an assigned land which is not liable for attachment and sale. Sri V. Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner has not only admitted in her counter-affidavit but also in her cross- examination that she is running a kirana shop and therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an agricultural coolie cannot be accepted. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner in the execution petition shows that she has stated that she does not have any other avocation except doing agricultural coolie work. She has however further stated that she is a business woman. In her cross-examination, the petitioner deposed as under : “My house is situated abutting Kodad-Khammam road at Thammarabandapalem. E.P. schedule house is my house. It consists of four rooms with R.C.C. roof. I am running a small kirana shop in my house. The said house was constructed in the year 1990. It is true that in the year 2004 the E.P. schedule house was attached before judgment. It is true that Kota Rami Reddy is the Panchayat Secretary of our village. I do not know the value of the E.P. schedule house. I myself has been looking after the kirana shop from 8.00 AM to 7.00 PM everyday. Except that I have no other avocation. The land in which the E.P. schedule house was constructed was purchased by me from one goldsmith about 30 years. It is not true to suggest that I am also having three other plots in the same village. It is not true to suggest that my house is not an assigned house allotted by the Government and only for the purpose of defence I pleaded the same in my counter and chief-examination. It is not true to suggest that the E.P. schedule house is liable for sale. I have not produced any documentary evidence in this E.P. to show that the E.P. schedule house is an assigned house.” Even though the petitioner has come out with a contradictory stand in her counter-affidavit regarding her avocation by stating on one hand that she is an agricultural coolie and also on the other hand that she is a business woman, in her cross-examination, which is reproduced above, she has stated in unequivocal terms that she is running a kirana shop and looking after the same from 8.00 AM to 7.00 PM everyday and that except the kirana shop she has no other avocation. There is contradiction with respect to the nature of title over the E.P. schedule property. The petitioner has deposed that the same was purchased by her from one goldsmith about 30 years back. She denied the suggestion that the said house is not an assigned house allotted by the Government. In the face of the clear admissions made by her, the petitioner cannot plead that the E.P. schedule property is not liable for attachment under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court below has not committed any error in allowing the E.P. filed by the respondent/Decree- holder. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has already deposited 1/4th of the E.P. amount under the interim order of this court. He requested for reasonable time for payment of the balance amount. Having regard to this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to pay the balance E.P. amount within three months from today failing which her house i.e., E.P. schedule property, is liable for sale in terms of order dated 15-2-2011 in E.P.No.43/2009 in O.S.No.249/2004. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order dated 30-4-2011 is vacated and CRP.M.P.No.2492/2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-9-2011 AM