HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5617 of 2010 & 117 OF 2011 DATE:15-04-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 OF 2010 BETWEEN Medapati Satyanarayana Reddy …Petitioner AND Kummeta Sai and others …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.117 OF 2011 BETWEEN Medapati Satyanarayana Reddy …Petitioner AND Kummeta Sai and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5617 of 2010 & 117 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are arising out of the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Originally, Subbareddy-father of the first respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 9.4.1993 and on his death during the proceedings, first respondent, his mother and his elder brother were brought on record as legal representatives of Subbareddy and that the suit was decreed against 11th defendant to execute a sale deed within three months from the date of judgment. For due execution of the decree, decree holders filed E.P.No.132 of 2002. The first respondent being minor was represented by his mother as guardian. However, his mother and his elder brother also died on 3.10.2003. While so, one K.Sriramulu set up an agreement of sale, dated 9.9.2003 alleged to have been executed by the mother and elder brother of the first respondent on their behalf and on behalf of first respondent represented by his mother. The revision petitioner herein, who is third party to the proceedings, claims to have purchased the said property from K.Sriramulu under an oral agreement of sale. E.A.No.280 of 2006 was filed by the first respondent and his elder brother-decree holders 2 and 3 under Sections 47 and 151 C.P.C. read with Order 21 Rule 16 read with 146 CPC to permit them to deposit the stamp duty and registration charges in the name of the petitioner herein-third party stating that on judgment debtors failing to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.312 of 1994, they filed E.P.No.132 of 2002 for execution of the sale deed, and while pending the E.P., as they were in need of money, they sold the plaint schedule property to one K.Sriramulu by executing registered agreement of sale dated 9.9.2003, and that their vendee-K.Sriramulu requested them to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. Meanwhile, the Court passed orders in E.P.No.132 of 2002 for deposit of stamp duty and registration charges and hence, they have no objection for execution of the sale deed in the name of the petitioner herein. The said E.A. was allowed on 24.10.2006 on contest made by 11th defendant and the said order has become final. Thereafter the impugned E.A.No.128 of 2008 was filed by the first respondent under Order 32 Rule 9 C.P.C. to declare him as major by discharging 12th respondent from his guardianship and also not to execute sale deed in favour of K.Sriramulu or his alleged vendees. As the said E.A. was not disposed of, first respondent filed a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.1504 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 17.6.2010 directing the executing Court to pass appropriate orders in E.A.No.128 of 2008. Later, the said E.A. was allowed in part on 30.9.2010 declaring the first respondent-3rd decree holder as major with a direction to him to file a separate application questioning the execution of sale deed in favour of K.Sriramulu or his alleged vendee in the above E.P. On allowing the E.A., petitioner-third party filed E.A.No.350 of 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as a party to E.P.No.132 of 2002 including E.A.No.128 of 2008. The said E.A. was dismissed on 30.9.2010 with a direction to the petitioner herein to file separate claim petition basing on his agreement of sale said to have been obtained from K.Sriramulu to whom the decree holders allegedly executed registered agreement of sale, dated 9.9.2003. Questioning the said order, C.R.P.No.5617 of 2010 is filed and questioning the orders passed in E.A.No.128 of 2008, C.R.P.No.117 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when E.A.No.280 of 2006 filed by the decree holders 2 and 3 was allowed permitting them to deposit stamp duty and registration charges in the name of the petitioner herein, he is a proper and necessary party to the E.P. and therefore, the executing Court is not justified in dismissing E.A.No.350 of 2010. It is further contended that allowing E.A.No.128 of 2008 is erroneous in view of the earlier order passed by the executing Court in allowing E.A.No.280 of 2006 at the instance of the petitioner in E.A.No.128 of 2008 and his brother. Admittedly, the first respondent herein was minor at the time when his mother and elder brother entered into an agreement of sale with K.Sriramulu, with whom, the petitioner herein is allegedly entered into oral agreement of sale and claiming right in the property covered by the suit and claiming specific performance on behalf of the decree holders. It is fairly well settled that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. has no application to the execution proceedings and if any person claims a right over the property, which is subject-matter of execution, he must file a claim petition. Further Section 47 C.P.C. also prohibits institution of a separate suit and all such claims should be adjudicated by the executing Court. Under Section 47 C.P.C., all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by way of a separate suit. Admittedly, the first respondent-3rd decree holder was a minor as on the date when his mother and elder brother executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of K.Sriramulu. Therefore, whether or not permission from the Court for such entering into agreement is must in view of Order 32 Rule 7 C.P.C. is a matter, which has to be decided by the executing Court on petitioner filing a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 or under Order 21 Rule 15 C.P.C. Since the petitioner claims to be the assignor of the decree obtained by the joint decree holders, necessarily he has to file a claim petition claiming his rights in the decree. In that view of the matter, no infirmity is discernable with the impugned orders passed by the executing Court. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall file a claim petition within a period of one month from today and claim his rights as assigned in the decree as recorded in E.A.No.280 of 2006. On filing such claim petition, the executing Court shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained for a period of one month. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 15, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) Tsr.