HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.976 of 2000 ORDER: The appellant filed O.S.No.27 of 1994 against the 2nd respondent for the relief of specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 18.09.1991, in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29.12.1995. As required under the decree, the appellant deposited the balance of sale consideration. Since the 2nd respondent did not come forward to execute the decree, the appellant filed E.P.No.210 of 1996. The Court itself executed a Sale Deed in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, proceedings were also initiated for delivery of possession. 2. At that stage, the 1st respondent filed E.A.No.65 of 1999 under Rules 96, 97, 101 and 105 of Order 21 CPC. It was pleaded that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the very property under the 2nd respondent and when there existed some disputes, he filed A.T.C.No.22 of 1992 before the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal-cum- Principal District Munsif, Kovvur, and the same was decreed ex parte on 21.11.1996. The appellant opposed E.A.No.65 of 1999. Through an order, dated 11.03.1999, the executing Court partly allowed the application declaring that the 1st respondent is a tenant in respect of the E.P. schedule property and the interest of the 2nd respondent/landlord stands transferred to the appellant. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the said order. 3. Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the A.T.C. was got filed by the 2nd respondent himself, with a view to defeat the right of the appellant, under the Agreement of Sale, dated 18.09.1991. He contends that deliberately, the 1st respondent impleaded the husband of the appellant as respondent in the A.T.C., that too, with incorrect description and the ex parte decree so obtained does not bind her. 4. Though notices were served upon respondents 1 and 2, there is no representation for them. 5. The appellant filed the suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale against the 2nd respondent and the suit was decreed and at the time when the possession of the property was about to be delivered to the appellant, the 1st respondent came forward with a claim petition. The sole basis for him for the claim is that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the land, and that his rights are protected under the order passed in A.T.C.No.22 of 1992. There was no reference as to the existence of tenant, under the Agreement of Sale. Though the 2nd respondent was made a party to the A.T.C., he did not even take steps to bring to the notice of the Tenancy Court about the disposal of O.S.No.27 of 1994, since by the time A.T.C.22 of 1992 was pending, O.S.No.27 of 1994 was decreed. 6. Be that as it may, as long as the appellant is not a party to the A.T.C., the adjudication made therein does not bind her. The mere fact that her husband was made a party to the A.T.C., that too, with wrong description, does not constitute notice to the appellant. This much ever can be said that delivery of possession in favour of the appellant shall be only to the extent which the 2nd respondent could have done in the given circumstances namely symbolic delivery. At the same time, the ex parte decree that was passed against the 2nd respondent in A.T.C. does not bind the appellant. The reason is that by the time ex parte decree was passed in A.T.C., the appellant was armed with the decree in O.S.No.27 of 1994. Even now, the appellant can take steps for recovery of possession of the property from the 1st respondent. The rights of the parties have to be determined independently and it shall be open to the appellant to plead all such grounds as are open to her, including the nature of the tenancy that is said to have existed between her vendor- the 2nd respondent and his tenant-1st respondent. 7. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order and decree, dated 11.03.1999, passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.65 of 1999 in E.P.No.210 of 1996 in O.S.No.27 of 1994, to the effect that the appellant shall be entitled for symbolic delivery of possession and it shall be open to her to initiate steps for eviction of the 1st respondent, in accordance with law. It shall also be open to her to question the correctness and legality of the order in A.T.C.No.22 of 1992. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 30th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.976 of 2000 (Partly allowed) 30th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.976 of 2000 DATE:30.07.2010 Between: Chintalapudi Lakshmi … Petitioner and Sri Narla Durga Rao and another … Respondents