IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1357, 1920 & 1921 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1357 OF 2008 Between: Annapurna Handlooms and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State Bank of India and another ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1920 OF 2008 Between: Annapurna Handlooms and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State Bank of India and another ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1921 OF 2008 Between: Annapurna Handlooms and another .....PETITIONERS AND The State Bank of India and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1357, 1920 & 1921 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders, dated 18.03.2008 in I.A.No.231 of 2006; dated 27.12.2007 in I.A.No.398 of 2006 in I.A.No.231 of 2006; and dated 27.02.2008 in I.A.No.397 of 2006 in I.A.No.231 of 2006, all in O.S.No.4 of 1997, respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed for passing of final decree for sale of the mortgaged property for realization of the decreetal amount, was dismissed and the petitions to implead respondent No.2 herein as a party to the suit proceedings and permit him to deposit the decreetal amount, were allowed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. I.A.No.231 of 2006 in O.S.No.4 of 1997, under Order XXXIV Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by the State Bank of India, Choutuppal Branch, for passing a final decree for sale of the mortgaged property for realization of the decretal amount. During the pendency of that petition respondent No.3 therein, who is purchaser of property, and was brought on record as per orders in I.A.No.397 of 2006, discharged the entire decreetal amount and the suit claim of the bank has been fully satisfied. In view of the fact that the suit claim was fully discharged, the petition filed by the State Bank of India, Choutuppal Branch, to pass a final decree was dismissed. While dismissing the petition, the trial Court permitted respondent No.3 therein (respondent No.2 herein) to take back the original title deeds, which were mortgaged with the Bank. 4. I.A.Nos.397 & 398 of 2006 were filed to permit respondent No.2 herein to come on record and to permit him to deposit the decreetal amount as a third party – purchaser, to redeem the mortgage by depositing the entire decreetal amount. Those petitions were allowed. 5. In so far as passing of the final decree is concerned, respondent No.2 herein - third party (respondent No.3 in I.A.No.231 of 2006) discharged the entire decreetal amount and no amount was due to the Bank. Therefore, the question of passing of final decree does not arise. But the question is whether the petitioners herein/ judgment debtors are entitled to take back the original title deeds from the Bank or respondent No.3 – purchaser therein is entitled to take back the original title deeds? 6. The plea of respondent No.2 herein (purchaser of the property) is that he purchased the property from the General Power of Attorney holder of petitioners through a valid registered sale deed, and that he is entitled to take back the original title deeds. Whereas the case of the petitioners herein is that they have not executed any sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 herein and they have been denying the execution of power of attorney in favour of vendor of respondent No.2 herein, who executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 herein. That aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the order of trial Court dismissing the petition in so far as passing of final decree is confirmed, and the order of return of sale deeds to respondent No.2 herein is liable to be set aside and that aspect of the case has to be decided by the trial Court in a separate application that may be filed by respondent No.2 herein. On filing of such application, the petitioners herein may be given an opportunity to contest the case and the trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders on such application. 7. With the above observation, the C.R.P.No.1357 of 2008 is partly allowed and C.R.P.Nos.1920 and 1921 of 2008 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 03, 2010 MD