THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1893 OF 2009 15th September 2009 Between: 1. Smt.A.Laxmi, W/o. Late A.Narasimha Rao, 45 yeas, Occ. Household, R/o.1-7-574/25/D1, Gemini Colony, Zamistanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. And two others. …PETITIONERS AND K.Anil Kumar, S/o.k.Chittari, 37 years, occ.Pvt.Employee, R/o.1-7- 496/12, Dayara Market, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1893 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.3995 of 2004 against the petitioners herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.75,000/-, together with interest. That amount was said to have been borrowed by late A.Narasimha Rao, the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3. The trial Court decreed the suit, on 05.06.2007. It was observed that, it is executable against the estate of late A.Narasimha Rao, if any, in the hands of the petitioners herein. The respondent filed E.P.No.271 of 2008 for enforcement of the decree. He sought attachment of movable properties, such as furniture, television, utensils, ceiling fan and other such items, owned by the petitioners. The petitioners filed E.A.No.73 of 2009 with a prayer to release the attached movables. Through its order, dated 25.03.2009, the executing Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Thakur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners did not borrow any amount from the respondent. It was late A.Narasimha Rao, who borrowed the same. The respondent filed the suit after the death of Narasimha Rao. The trial Court decreed the suit only against the estate of the deceased, which may be found in the hands of the petitioners. The decree became final. It was certainly open to the respondent to proceed against the estate of the deceased. Instead, he has chosen to get the movable items owned by the petitioners, attached. In the ordinary parlance, the word ‘estate’ connotes landed and other immovable properties. It was not even pleaded in the E.P. that the deceased left any estate. No effort was made by the respondent, much less by the executing Court, to ascertain as to whether any estate was left by late Narasimha Rao, and if so, to what extent it is in the hands of the petitioners. Assuming that items of movable property also can constitute, the respondent was under obligation to plead and prove that those mentioned in the E.P., had accrued to the petitioners from late Narasimha Rao. There is no plea to that effect. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the attachment ordered in E.P.No.271 of 2008 shall stand set aside. It is left open to the respondent to proceed against the estate of late A.Narasimha Rao. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by them, in pursuance of the interim order, passed on 29.04.2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 15th September 2009 RRB/GJ