HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3170 OF 2007 DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN R.Krishnamma ….Petitioner/JDR No.1 and M.Raghava Reddy ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3170 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner herein is Judgment Debtor No.1. She ﬁled the present Civil Revision Petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 29.3.2007 passed in OEP.No. 13 of 2006 in O.S.No. 666 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the learned Ist Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli. The case of the petitioner is that she is the widow of R.Siddappa who is the exclusive owner of the EP schedule property and after the death of her husband, herself and her two sons and four daughters have succeeded to EP schedule property and it is in their joint possession and enjoyment and each of them is having 1/7th share in it. It is stated that one of their sons, Chandraskehar pre-deceased his father. It is her further case that the ﬁrst respondent/DHR ﬁled the aforesaid suit against her and respondents 2 and 3 herein who are no other than the wife and daughter of late Chandrasekhar, inter alia contending that during the life time of said Chandrasekhar he borrowed some amount and died without discharging his debt and since she being his mother and respondents 2 and 3 being his wife and daughter, ﬁled the suit treating them as their class I legal heirs and succeeded to his share in the EP schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent and the appellate Court decreed the suit against the estate of late Chandraskehar. It is the further case of the petitioner that the entire EP schedule property is not liable for sale for realisation of the debt of the deceased Chandrasekhar since he is having 1/7th share in it and if the entire property is sold it will aﬀect the rights of the other co-sharers and that the sale proceedings should be conﬁned to the extent of his 1/7th share in the EP schedule property. The Court below held that claiming of EP schedule property exclusively by the petitioner/JDR.No.1 and her another son and four daughters cannot be accepted inasmuch as Chandrasekhar being one of the sons is also a co-sharers along with other legal representatives of late R.Siddappa. It was further held that claiming of entire EP schedule property by 1st judgment debtor as the personal property of herself and other legal heirs of R.Siddappa is not sustainable. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, it is to be seen that after demise of original owner, R.Siddappa, the petitioner/JDR.No.1 and her second son and other children have suceeded to the property. The EP Schedule property which is in their possession is not the estate of late Chandrsekhar and the same is joint among all the sharers. The Court below did not consider in proper perspective that the interest of other co- sharers cannot be constituted as estate of the deceased Chandraskehar. Hence, the matter requires fresh consideration in the EP. In that view of the matter, the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below for deciding as to which property should be put to sale for realisation of the decreetal almount. The Court below is directed to reconsider and dispose of the matter afresh, in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 5th August, 2010. Msnr.