IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 273 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/12/2007 in WP NO : 7995 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Lagisetty Renuka W/o.LVenkateswarlu R/o.H.No.8-3-309, Balaji Nagar, I.D.A. UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Lagisetty Dhanasri D/o.LVenkateswarlu R/o.H.No.8-3-309, Balaji Nagar, I.D.A. UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. (Petitioners 2 to 4 are minors rep. by their natural Guardian & mother 1st Petitioner). 3 Lagisetty Gnanendra Babu S/o.LVenkateswarlu R/o.H.No.8-3-309, Balaji Nagar, I.D.A. UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. (Petitioners 2 to 4 are minors rep. by their natural Guardian & mother 1st Petitioner). 4 Lagisetty Jayasri, L.Venkateswarlu R/o.H.No.8-3-309, Balaji Nagar, I.D.A. UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. (Petitioners 2 to 4 are minors rep. by their natural Guardian & mother 1st Petitioner). ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Asst. Registrar & sale Officer, Madhira/Stambhadri Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Sthambadri, Khammam. 3 its Chief Executive Officer, Stambhadri Cooperative Bank Khammam, Khammam District. 4 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Khammam, Khammam District. 5 Lingaboina Venkateshwarlu S/o Rosaiah, Khanapuram Haveli Village, Khammam Urban Mandal and District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 7995 of 2007, dated 26-12-2007 this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. Respondent No.5, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants 2 to 4 has mortgaged the property which is the subject matter of the litigation in favour of respondent No.3-Bank and as the mortgaged money could not be repaid, the property in question was ultimately put to sale by holding an auction and the property has already been sold and certificate of sale has also been issued. At this juncture, when respondent No.5 failed in all the litigations, the appellants have chosen to file the petition submitting that they had right in the property and the property was disposed of at an auction at a lower price. After hearing the concerned parties and looking to the facts of the case, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition by an order dated 26-12-2007 and being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the present appellants have right in the property in question and, therefore, respondent No.5 could not have mortgaged the said property in favour of respondent No.3-Bank. Upon perusal of the papers, we find that a suit for partition has already been filed by appellant No.1 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam being O.S.No. 31 of 2006 and the said suit is pending. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that at present the present appellants have any right in the property in question. However, if they have any right, they can take appropriate further action by impleading the concerned parties in the suit, if they think it proper. Another contention with regard to valuation and amount realized at the time of auction is also not well founded because we find that after following the due procedure, the auction has been conducted and necessary notice had been duly published and therefore, it cannot be said that auction was not properly held. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the auction was improperly conducted. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal and the order passed by the learned single Judge does not require any interference of this Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. In pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- has been deposited by the appellants at the time when the petition was pending for hearing. The said amount has to be returned by the 3rd respondent to the appellants, if not returned or adjusted so far. __________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd April, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies