IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.302 OF 2010 Between: Pillala Dhanalakshmi. --- Petitioner/ Petitioner. AND Pottuluri Mallikharjuna Rao and eight others. --- Respondents/ Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.302 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. questioning the order dated 23-10-2009, passed in E.A. No.45 of 2007 in E.P. No.88 of 2004 in O.S. No.8 of 2000 by the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The petitioner is third party to the proceedings before the executing Court, she filed a petition under Section 47 of C.P.C. to declare the Award and Decree dated 26-09-2003 in O.S. No.8 of 2000 passed by the Lok Adalat at Vizianagaram, as null and void. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent on the basis of an illegal and untenable claim filed a suit in O.S. No.8 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, against respondents 2 to 4 and husband of the 5th respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the schedule mentioned property therein. Subsequently, all the parties to the suit have colluded together and on the basis of their collusive compromise got the matter referred to Lok Adalat and the first respondent obtained a decree in the form of an award dated 26-09-2003 with a direction for execution of registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the schedule property. According to the petitioner, the schedule mentioned property is a coparcenary joint family property in which the petitioner and her sisters have got shares as per the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 1985. The 7th respondent who is one of the brothers of the petitioner herein filed O.S. No.41 of 1986 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, for partition of all the movable and immovable joint family properties and a decree was passed on 23-03-1996. Against the said decree, an Appeal was preferred and the same is pending as A.S.1559 of 2003 before this Court. It is also stated by her that an interlocutory order not to alienate the property was passed by this Court in the said Appeal, the award passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No.8 of 2000 shall not be given effect to. On the other hand, the first respondent-decree holder filed counter before the executing Court and contended that the 7th respondent filed O.S. No.41 of 1986 for partition of the joint family properties into 6 equal shares and allot one such share to him and the petitioner herein was impleaded as 9th defendant in the said suit. She further contended that in the said suit, the petitioner and her sisters filed written statement stating that all the plaint schedule properties which include subject matter of suit in O.S. No.8 of 2000 are self acquired properties of their parents and they have executed a will in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 6 and in the said suit and that they did not claim any rights in the said properties and were unnecessarily added in those petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned executing Court dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not a party to the suit in O.S. No.8 of 2000 in which the award and decree was passed and was put to execution thereafter. Section 47 of C.P.C. lays down that the executing Court shall determine the questions arising between the parties to the suit in a decree so passed or their legal representatives and as stated, the suit is not competent. 7. Here is a case where as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7, Mr. D. Ramalinga Swamy, that the petitioner is neither a party to the suit nor her claim is represented by any of the parties to the suit. 8. However, in O.S. No.41 of 1986, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, filed by the 7th respondent for partition of joint family properties, a preliminary decree was passed on the application made by the 7th respondent. The preliminary decree was marked as Ex.B1 and final decree was marked as Ex.B2 before the executing Court. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the preliminary decree or final decree passed in O.S. No.41 of 1986. Ex.B4 filed by the respondents is the copy of written statement and additional written statement filed by the petitioner and her sisters in O.S. No.41 of 1986. Ex.B5 is the copy of the delivery report. The petitioner herein and her sisters have specifically stated in the additional written statement that all the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of their parents and they bequeathed all their properties to the defendant Nos.3 to 6 who are the brothers of the petitioner. They also stated in the additional written statement that they are not claiming any share in the suit schedule property and they were unnecessarily added as defendants in the suit. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that C.M.P. No.16069 of 2000 in A.S. No.75 of 1997, this Court directed the parties therein not to alienate the property in question. The first respondent-decree holder is not a party to the above proceedings and the petitioners therein have not obtained any stay of execution of decree made by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No.8 of 2000. Therefore, the executing Court has no jurisdiction to record any finding with regard to the validity or otherwise of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. No steps have been taken by the petitioner to set aside the award and decree passed by the Lok Adalat on the ground of collusive compromise. Since the petitioner had specifically filed written statement and stated she has no right or interest in the joint family property in view of the will executed by her father in favour of her brothers i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 6, therein she is estopped from contending that still the disputed property is joint family property and she is a coparcener entitled to her share as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1985. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely find any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, by decreeing a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of C.P.C and the findings recorded by the learned Executing Court do not call for any interference in this Revision. However, this Court makes it clear that any observations made while disposing of this civil revision petition, are confined only to this petition and they shall not have any impact on the rights of the parties in A.S. No.75 of 1997, which is pending before this Court which have to be dealt with independently. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. December, 10, 2010. DSH