IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2396 of 2010 Between: Guda Venkata Ramana Sita Rama Anjaneyulu … Petitioner And: Kakileti Suryakumari & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2396 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.04.2007 in ATA No.10 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari district at Amalapuram, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein-4th DHr and respondents 4 to 6 herein/DHrs 1 to 3, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 08.03.2004 in EA No.319 of 2003 in EP No.57 of 2002 in ATC No.24 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, where under, the said application filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, claiming objections, was allowed. 2. Heard the petitioner-4th DHr, who appeared as party in person and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3- claimants. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein and his brothers filed ATC No.24 of 1993 against Arigela Satyam and Nagabhushanam, who are tenants for eviction and delivery of possession. By order dated 30.09.1993 the said petition was allowed on merits and the eviction of the tenants was ordered. The land-lords filed EP No.57 of 2002 for delivery of possession in favour of the petitioner herein-4th decree-holder. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed EA No.319 of 2003 raising objections and claiming rights in the property. According to them, the schedule land Ac.5.44 cents in Sy.No.137 Palagummi village, was owned by the family of the decree-holders and one of the brothers Gude Seetharamanjaneyulu had relinquished his rights in the said property by taking tiled house and executed a relinquishment deed on 27.7.1993 and the remaining four brothers i.e., petitioner herein and respondents 4 to 6 became owners of Ac.5.44 cents. The claimants further contended that on 22.07.1993, the decree-holder executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy regarding an extent of Ac.5.44 cents and General Power of Attorney holder took delivery of possession from the tenants and issued delivery certificate on 15.11.1993. Subsequently, the General Power of Attorney holder sold away Ac.1.72 cents in favour of first claimant (R.1) under a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1993 for Rs.77,400/- and delivered possession and he sold 72 cents in favour of 2nd claimant-R.2 under registered sale deed dated 30.12.1993 for Rs.32,400/- and delivered possession and he sold Ac.1.00 cents under registered sale deed on 30.12.1993 in favour of 3rd claimant (R.3) and delivered possession. Thus, according to the claimants, they purchased total extent of Ac.3.44 cents under registered sale deeds Exs.A.4 to A.6 from the General Power of Attorney Holder, for valuable consideration. Ex.A.1 is stated to be registered general power of attorney executed by the decree-holders in favour of Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy. The claimants alleged that suppressing the above facts, the decree-holders filed EP No.57 of 2002 for delivery of possession. The petitioner herein-4th Decree- holder filed counter in EA No.319 of 2003 contending that brother of the decree-holders did not execute relinquishment deed and it was only the decree-holders, who executed relinquishment deed in favour of their brother in respect of tiled house and the schedule land is not covered by the same. The petitioner admitted in his counter that the Decree-holders executed power of attorney on 22.07.1993 in favour of Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy, but states that it was a condition to contest the matter before the Tenancy Tribunal, but the General Power of Attorney Holder did not contest ATC No.24 of 1993 or EP No.57 of 2002 and therefore, general power of attorney holder lost his rights as such and subsequently, the decree-holders cancelled the general power of attorney. The petitioner further alleges that the delivery receipt filed by the general power of attorney holder is created for the purpose of objections raised by the claimants collusively. The petitioner further contended that the sale deeds executed by the general power of attorney holder in favour of the claimants are null and void as he had no right to convey any title in respect of the schedule property. 4. During enquiry before the execution Court, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked on behalf of the claimants and petitioner herein-4th DHr was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked on his behalf. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the execution court held that the decree-holders executed Ex.A.1 general power of attorney in favour of PW.4 Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy and the same was also executed by RW.1-petitioner herein and as per the terms of the general power of attorney Ex.A.1, PW.4 was competent to manage the E.P. schedule lands and take delivery of possession from the tenants and also to alienate the lands in favour of others. The execution Court further held that the truth and validity of Ex.A.1 was duly established by the independent testimony of PWs.5 and 6 and in pursuance of Ex.A.1, PW.4 took possession of the land from the tenants under delivery receipt Ex.A.3. The execution Court further held that the truth and validity of Ex.A.3 has been duly established by the independent witnesses PWs.5 and 7. The execution Court further held that the claimants have established their title to the extent of Ac.3.44 cents by virtue of their purchase under registered sale deeds Exs.A.4 to A.6 from PW.4 and the same is binding on the decree-holders. Accordingly, the claim application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein and other decree-holders filed appeal ATA No.10 of 2004. 5. The learned Additional District Judge framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the failure to implead Guda Sitaramanjaneyulu the 5th decree-holder as a party to the objection petition is fatal to the petitioner? 2. Whether Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy given the power to alienate the property of Ac.5.44 cents in Sy.No.137 of Palagummi under General Power of Attorney dated 22.07.1993? 3. Whether the General Power of Attorney Holder of the decree holders had sold away an extent of Ac.3.44 cents to the three objectors under three different sale deeds? 4. Whether the objection raised by the claimants is sustainable? 6. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, the learned District Judge on point No.1 held that the brother of the decree- holders ceased to have any rights in the schedule property ever since the execution of Ex.A.2 relinquishment deed dated 27.07.1993. On point No.2, the appellate court held that the execution of general power of attorney is admitted and going by its terms and conditions, the general power of attorney was competent to manage the schedule lands and also evict the alieanees. On point No.3, the appellate Court held that PW.4 general power of attorney holder had taken delivery of property from the tenants by virtue of Ex.A.1 and the delivery receipt Ex.A.3 was validly passed and he also executed sale deeds Exs.A.4 to A.6 in favour of respondents 1 to 3 herein in respect of Ac.3.44 cents. On Point No.4, the appellate Court held that the objections raised by the claimants are well sustained. Assailing the same, the present revision is filed by one of the decree- holders i.e., 4th DHr. The other decree-holders, who are impleaded as respondents 4 to 6 herein are shown as unnecessary parties to the revision petition. 7. The other decree-holders have not questioned the impugned orders and thus having become final insofar as they are concerned. The execution of Ex.A.1 general power of attorney by the decree-holders in favour of PW.4 is admitted. The contention of the petitioner that the said general power of attorney was executed only for limited purpose of contesting the tenancy proceedings is untenable as the terms and conditions of the general power of attorney would show that the general power of attorney holder-PW.4 was authorized to manage the properties and also alienate the same. Ex.A.1 was duly proved by the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 also besides PW.4 and the admission of RW.1. When once PW.4 is authorized by the decree-holders under Ex.A.1 not only to contest the tenancy matters, but also to manage the schedule land and evict their alieanees, PW.4 is certainly competent to take delivery of possession from the tenants. Delivery receipt Ex.A.3 is duly proved by PWs.5 and 7, who are independent witnesses besides the testimony of PW.4. The contention of the petitioner that Ex.A.3 delivery receipt was collusive remains totally unsubstantiated. The alienations in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein under Exs.A.4 to A.6 registered sale deeds by the general power of attorney holder-PW.4 were also duly proved. The competence of PW.4 to evict the said alieanees under Ex.A.1 cannot be questioned. It is obvious that having executed Ex.A.1 general power of attorney in favour of PW.4 and having obtained delivery of possession from the tenants under Ex.A.3 through PW.4 and having evicted the alieanees under Ex.A.4 to A.6 in respect Ac.3.44 cents in favour of respondents 1 to 3, Decree-holders have chosen to file EP No.57 of 2002, suppressing the above facts. The respondents 1 to 3 have successfully established their claim in respect of Ac.3.44 cents by virtue of their purchase under Exs.A.4 to A.6. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the execution Court while up holding the objection of the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 herein and confirming the same by the appellate Court on re-appraisal of the evidence, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.04.2011 bss