THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3507 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. Tanikella Rajyslaxmi (died) and others PETITIONERS AND Yellaparagada Laxmibai, W/o. Krishnamurthy, Retired Hindi Teacher, R/o. D.No.3-237, Anandnagar, Vishali Convent Road, Kothapeta, East Godavari District – 533 223. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for the respondent: Sri S. Subba Reddy The Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioners/JDRs filed this revision petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari District in E.P.No.39/2008 in O.S.No.143 of 1999 in allowing the E.P. ordering for settlement of terms for attached property by overruling the objections raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment and decree, which is sought to be revised, is a nullity since it is passed against a dead person, and that the first JDR did not borrow any amount from the decree holder, and her son, who died intestate, is only liable to discharge the debt. The properties, which were brought to sale, neither belonged to the deceased/original borrower nor the first JDR. Both the mother and son have nothing to do with the property. The properties are separate and self acquired properties of one Tanikella Srirama Murthy, who is the paternal grand father of the deceased Buchi Sitharam Subrahmanyam and father-in-law of the first JDR, who executed registered Will dated 24.07.1972 and the said properties devolved upon his son Tanikella Suryanarayana Sastry, who is the husband of the first JDR, and the same were sold under a registered sale deed dated 10.11.2008 for a valuable consideration in respect of items 1 to 3 of the E.P. schedule and possession was also delivered. Therefore, the E.P. schedule properties cannot be attached. The lower Court rightly dismissed the I.A., since after reserving the suit for judgment, one of the defendant died. If the properties attached now are brought to sale, which do not belong to the deceased or the first JDR, how they sell the property to discharge their debts to the petitioners 2 and 3/respondents 2 and 3 in E.P., who are claiming title to the said property is not known. The petitioners can always file a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 for adjudication of claims. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 21st August, 2009 Js.