THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.763 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent is the wife of the 3rd respondent. They had two daughters, by name Vishnuchakram and the 2nd respondent, and a son – the 4th respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 and Vishnuchakram filed O.S.No.2 of 1981 in the Court of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, against respondents 3 and 4, for maintenance. The suit was decreed and they filed E.P.No.135 of 1986, for execution. Two items of property, namely an extent of Ac.1.07 cents and Ac.0.93 cents, were got attached. The appellants filed E.A.No.17 of 1987 under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. According to them, respondents 3 and 4 executed an agreement of sale, dated 28.07.1979, in respect of the first item, and another agreement on 08.03.1980, in respect of the second item. It was pleaded that when the 3rd respondent did not accede to the request for execution of the sale deeds, the 4th respondent ultimately came forward and executed sale deed on 05.12.1980. They pleaded that the decree cannot be executed against the said properties. During the pendency of the E.P., Vishnuchakram died and her legal representatives – respondents 5 to 7 have come on record. Through its judgment, dated 22.03.1993, the Executing Court partly allowed the claim of the appellants in respect of item No.1, but rejected the same as regards the second item. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Heard Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri N.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. In the course of execution of the decree in O.S.No.2 of 1981, two items of property, referred to above, were attached. The appellants laid their claim in respect of two items, on the basis of two agreements of sale and the ultimate sale deed. On behalf of the appellants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.31 were filed. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were filed. It is no doubt true that by the time the execution was taken out, the two items of land stood transferred in favour of the appellants. The fact, however, remains that the agreement of sale in respect of the second item was executed subsequent to the date of filing of the suit. To be precise, the suit was filed on 03.03.1980 and the agreement of sale was executed on 08.03.1980. The fact that the sale deed came to be executed on 05.12.1980, hardly makes any difference. The Executing Court has undertaken extensive discussion and assigned cogent reasons, as to how the first item of the property deserves to be excluded from the purview of the execution and why the second item is liable to be proceeded against. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount payable under the decree is meagre, but the apprehension of his clients is that the finding in the E.A., may be treated as the basis for claiming partition of the second item. This apprehension is absolutely without basis. The appellants have already become absolute owners of both the items. Respondents 3 and 4 have parted with the property with the execution of sale deed, dated 05.12.1980. When the appellants are enjoying the rights of ownership for the past more than three decades, the question of subjecting that item, does not arise. The C.M.A. is dismissed, with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:22.07.2010 GJ