THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1082 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.12.2010 in E.A. in C.F.R. No.3093/2010 in E.P. No.20 of 2007 in O.S. No.58 of 1984 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, Anantapur District, whereunder and whereby the court below directed to number the Execution Application filed by the first respondent under Order XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.58 of 1984 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, against the second respondent herein, seeking delivery of vacant possession of land. The trial court dismissed the Suit vide judgment dated 10.04.1987. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred Appeal Suit No.16 of 1987 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. The appeal was allowed vide judgment dated18.10.2001 and the same attained finalty. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P. No.20 of 2007 seeking delivery of property under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC, and during pendency of the execution proceedings, the first respondent filed Execution Application under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, claiming right, title and interest over the schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 24.6.1987, and the same was numbered as E.A. No.558 of 2010 by the impugned order. 4. No doubt, under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, executing court can decide title between the parties, but, at the same time, for filing of such an application, the petitioner must show a prima facie title so as to be adjudicated in the claim petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision in Shreenath & another v. Rajesh & others[1], wherein it is held thus: (para 11) “So, under Order 21 Rule 101, all disputes between the decree-holder and any such person is to be adjudicated by the Executing Court. A party is not thrown out to relegate itself to the long drawn out arduous procedure of a fresh suit. This is to salvage the possible hardship both to the decree-holder and other person claiming title on their own right to get it adjudicated in the very execution proceedings”. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the above decision. If there is a dispute between the decree holder and any such person with regard to title, the same has to be adjudicated by the executing court, but not by way of filing of separate suit. 6. The claim of the first respondent/claimant is based upon an unregistered agreement of sale dated 24.06.1987. The law is well settled that an agreement of sale does not confer any title to the parties unless it transformed into a registered sale deed. In pursuance of the agreement of sale, no regular sale deed was executed in favour of the first respondent/claimant. So long as a regular sale deed is not executed, the remedy of the first respondent/claimant is not under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC. Therefore, in the absence of any prima facie title in favour of the first respondent/claimant over the schedule property, the executing court ought to have rejected the application at threshold. There is no need to conduct any enquiry because it is a futile exercise because the first respondent failed to show prima facie title over the schedule property. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, and consequently, E.A. in C.F.R. No.3093/2010 in E.P. No.20 of 2007 in O.S. No.58 of 1984 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal, Anantapur District stands rejected. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 15.6.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1082 OF 2011 15.6.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1082 OF 2011 15.6.2011 Between: K.Kesava Reddy …Petitioner And Shaik Rasool Sab & others …Respondents [1] AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1827