THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.1115 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur in E.P.No.124/2003 in A.T.C.No.10/1997, the judgment-debtor, filed the present revision. 3. The 1st respondent filed A.T.C.No.10/1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, seeking eviction of the petitioner, who was the tenant over the suit schedule property and the said ATC was allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.4/2000 on the file of the District Court, Nerllore and by order dated 28.10.2003, the same ended in dismissal and the further revision filed before this court in C.R.P.No.6942/2003, was also dismissed by order dated 14.7.2006. During the pendency of the proceedings, the 1st respondent sold the suit schedule property to the 2nd respondent and he was impleaded and the decree holder also died during the pendency of the proceedings. The subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule property filed E.P.No.124/2003 under Order 21, Rule 35 of C.P.C. seeking deliver of the E.P. schedule property. By order dated 19.10.2010, the court below allowed the E.P. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment-debtor filed the present revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the there is discrepancy with regard to extent contained in Ex.P-1, which is the sale deed executed by the decree-holder in favour of the 2nd respondent in the revision, and the E.P. schedule property and hence the 2nd respondent is not entitled to seek deliver of the extent of land, which is in excess of the E.P. schedule property. He contended that under the guise of the impugned order, the 2nd respondent is trying to cut away the standing crop by taking possession of the E.P. schedule property along with other land to an extent of Acs.2-00 in Sy.Nos.19 and 29 of Pedaputhedu village, which is in possession of the petitioner. With this contention, he sought to direct the court below to deliver only the suit schedule property and leave the extent, which is in excess shown in Ex.P-1 sale deed. 5. From the material available on record, it could be seen that 1st respondent herein filed ATC seeking eviction of the petitioner - tenant and the said ATC was allowed and the subsequent appeal and the revision also ended in dismissal. During the pendency of the appeal proceedings, the decree holder sold the schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent, delivered symbolic possession. The 2nd respondent was impleaded and decree holder subsequent to execution of Ex.P-1 sale deed, died and therefore, seeking deliver of E.P. schedule property by evicting the petitioner - tenant, he filed the present E.P. and the same was allowed. 6. The petitioner disputed the sale deed executed by the decree-holder in favouar of the 2nd respondent and further contended that as he is the tenant, before alienating the property, under Section 15 of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, he shall be given first preference and only after he failing to exercise the option, sale can be made to outsiders. Since, no option was given to him, it amounts to violation of Section 15 of the said Act. He also contended that there is discrepancy between the extents mentioned in Ex.P-1 sale deed and the E.P. schedule property and hence, the excess extent, shall not be delivered to the 2nd respondent. 7. The court below based on evidence found that the 2nd petitioner could prove based on oral and documentary evidence, the execution of Ex.P-1 sale deed in his favour. Further with regard to 2nd contention, the court below found that after the allowing of ATC and directing the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, and in view of the dismissal of the appeal and the further revision, the petitioner is not longer a tenant under law and he is only a tenant at sufferance and hence compliance of Section 15 of Tenancy Act does not arise. With regard to discrepancy between the E.P. schedule land and the extent in Ex.P-1 is concerned, the court below based on evidence found that the boundaries of the E.P. schedule land and boundaries in Ex.P-1 are perfectly tallying and on the settled principle that boundaries prevails over the extents, the contention of the petitioner in this regard, was rejected. 8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order for interference of this court under Section 115 of C.P.C. and hence the revision is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- 26—07—2011