THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.4998 OF 2009 05-12-2009 BETWEEN; GVNS Anjanee Devi ...Petitioner vs. Pulipati Vijayalakshmi and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.4998 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This is a revision under Section 115 CPC by the 2nd Judgment Debtor/2nd defendant directed against the order dated 03.10.2009 in E.P.No.23 of 2008 in O.S.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The 1st respondent/decree holder filed the E.P. for realisation of the decretal amount under the judgment and decree in O.S.No.16 of 2007. The 2nd respondent and the revision petitioner, are the two defendants in the suit and have suffered the decree, which has become final. The E.P was filed under Order 21 Rule 54(A) and Secs.64 and 66 CPC for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the petition schedule property. The revision petitioner filed a counter denying the liability and further claiming that the petition schedule property is her ancestral property acquired from her father Rama Rao, who is also the husband of the 1st defendant/judgment debtor. In addition to the above claim, the revision petitioner asserted that the property is in her exclusive possession and enjoyment with absolute right; further claimed that the 1st Judgment Debtor has no right to the schedule property and therefore the decree holder cannot seek attachment and sale of the petition schedule property for realisation of the decretal debt. The court below rejected this plea by holding that after the demise of her father- Rama Rao the first and second defendants/Judgment Debtors became exclusively entitled to the property and therefore the earlier observation in the judgment and decree in O.S.No.16 of 2007 that the property is not liable for attachment before judgment ought not to hinder the executing court from proceeding against the property which is now the exclusive property of 1st and 2nd Judgment Debtors. This court discerns no infirmity in the application of law or the exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting interference in the revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 5th DECEMBER 2009. TSNR