THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4181, 4359 & 4311 of 2009 Date of Order 09-10-2009 Between: 1 G. Varamma and aother ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 G. Muralidhar and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4181, 4359 & 4311 of 2009 Common order: These three revisions are interconnected with each other between the same parties and arise out of the same suit. Therefore, they were heard together for admission and disposed of by this common order. The 1st respondent—decree holder filed O.S.No.34 of 2004 basing on registered mortgage deed executed by 1st judgment debtor and obtained a decree through Lok Adalat against the mortgaged property, which originally belongs to 1st respondent’s mother, who bequeathed the same in favour of 1st respondent through a registered will dated 25-01-1995 where the 1st respondent constructed a terraced building and he is the absolute owner. For due execution of the decree the decree holder filed E.P.No.100 of 2004. During the pendency of the execution petition the 1st respondent/1st JDR died and his legal representatives—respondents 2 to 4 were brought on record. The 2nd respondent being the guardian and next friend of respondents 3 and 4 filed O.S.No.10 of 1985 on the file of Senior Civil Jude, Chirala which was decreed on 17-12-1987 granting a preliminary decree for Rs.1,90,983/- dividing plaint schedule property into equal shares and one share was allotted to the son of the 1st respondent and another share was allotted to 1st respondent. As per the gift deed executed by late Mallayya of Mallayyapeta, the 1st respondent has no right whatsoever to alienate the property in any manner except for enjoyment during his lifetime and after his death the same will be devolved to his legal heirs. In fact, suit—O.S.No.73 of 1967 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry filed for setting aside the gift deed executed in favour of 1st respondent was decreed on 26-04-2005 and 1st respondent filed E.P. During the pendency of the above E.P. petitioners herein filed E.A.No.480 of 2008 for sending the documents filed in O.S.No.34 of 2004 to the handwriting expert for comparison and they also filed E.A.No.481 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the Vakalat of the defendant, memo filed by both the parties, Lok Adalat Award copy, letters addressed to the decree holder and Ex.R2 writings to the handwriting expert for comparison. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry by order dated 17-03-2009 dismissed E.A.No.481 of 2008 holding once the decree is passed it has become final and in view of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be binding on the parties and no appeal shall lie. Therefore, it is not open for the judgment debtors to plea new facts in the execution proceedings. The husband of the 1st petitioner who filed counter in the E.P. nowhere contended that decree holder forged his signature and the Lok Adalat award is collusive decree or obtained by fraud. It is also not pleaded that he has not executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of decree holder. Only on the death of 1st judgment debtor his wife raised a new plea, which is contrary to the plea taken by her husband in E.P. during his lifetime. Against the said order C.R.P.No.4181 of 2009 was filed. On dismissal of E.A.No.481 of 2008, E.A.No.480 of 2009 filed for sending the document to the handwriting expert for comparison was also dismissed. Against which C.R.P.No.4359 of 2009 was filed. On dismissal of both E.A.Nos.481 and 480 of 2008 main E.P.No.100 of 2004 was ordered. Against which C.R.P.No.4311 of 2009 of 2004 was filed. The impugned order passed by the lower court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The C.R.Ps. are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 09-10-2009 Murthy