THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.391 of 1995 15th September 2009 Between: Nandamuri Vijaya Sai, S/o.Koteswararao, Hindu Mala, Cultivation, Pennumantra TDMC. …APPELLANT AND 1. Ragu Kasi viswanadham, S/o.Rajanna, Cultivation, Penumantra, TDMC. And one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.391 of 1995 JUDGMENT: The first respondent filed O.S.No.68 of 1976 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, against the second respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 18.02.1980. The first respondent filed E.P.No.35 of 1980 and got attached an item of immovable property. The appellant, who is the son of the second respondent, filed E.A.No.369 of 1992 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He pleaded that the attached property has fallen to his share in a family partition and that the same cannot be proceeded. The executing Court dismissed the E.A. through order dated 22.02.1995. Assailing the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Y.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent got attached an item of property stating that it is owned by the second respondent. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded that it has fallen to his share in a partition that took place in the year 1971. The executing Court recorded oral and documentary evidence and repelled the contentions of the appellant. Before this Court also several contentions urged touching on the merits of the matter. The fact, however, remains that way back, on 19.10.1995, this Court made the order of interim stay absolute on a condition of the appellant depositing the entire decretal amount and out of it, the first respondent was permitted to withdraw three-fourth {3/4th}. Now that the appellant has deposited the entire decretal amount and virtually, nothing needs to be adjudicated here. If he is of the view that the second respondent is liable to pay the amount, he can file a suit for recovery thereof. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed upholding the order impugned in the appeal. The first respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance of the amount deposited by the appellant herein. It shall be open to the appellant to recover the amount deposited, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 15th September 2009 RRB