IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4824 and 4825 of 2009 Between: T.Sivarama Krishna Prasad … Petitioner And Moka Narayana Rao and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4824 and 4825 of 2009 COMMON ORDER:- Both the revisions arise out of the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, dated 03.09.2009, in E.A.Nos.72 and 73 of 2006 in E.A.No.54 of 2006 in E.P.No.66 of 2004 in O.S.No.9 of 2004 respectively, filed under Order XXI Rules 99 to 101 CPC to put the third party/petitioner in the E.A. in possession of the suit schedule property. Petitioner, who obtained a decree against the judgment debtor in a suit for recovery of the amount based on a promissory note, attached the schedule property before judgment; after obtaining the decree he filed E.P.; participated in the auction with the permission; purchased the property in the court auction; a sale certificate was given in his favour. Later, the decree holder filed E.A. for delivery of the property purchased by him. After recording the delivery of the property to the decree holder/auction purchaser, the above two E.As were filed stating that he purchased an extent of Ac.0-70½ cents from Lingaiah and Nancharaiah under possessory contract of sale, dated 13.10.1967, and he is put in possession and he also occupied an extent of Ac.0-39½ cents in the same survey number, making total to an extent of Ac.1-10 cents and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and the said property was also mortgaged to the P.A.C.S., Edurumondi for availing the loan. The judgment debtor has no right or title over the said property, but he is absolute owner of the property. Further, the 1st respondent/decree holder also knows about the said fact that the property belongs to the father and mother of the judgment debtor and the said property was also mortgaged with the PACS and obtained the loan. To prove the ownership, apart from examining himself as P.W.1, the 1st respondent got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The decree holder/petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the petitioner herein/decree holder, who was examined as R.W.1, admitted in the cross-examination that he filed encumbrance certificate in the E.P., wherein it was clearly mentioned that the petition schedule property belongs to the 1st respondent, who filed E.A.Nos.73 and 72 of 2006, and that the judgment debtor filed insolvency petition by showing him as one of the respondents, but he has not shown the schedule property in I.P. He further admitted that the petitioner in the impugned E.As/1st respondent in both the revisions, purchased the schedule property from Lingaiah and Nancharaiah, respectively. Further in the cross-examination he admitted that the purchases were made by the 1st respondent, but he has not filed any documentary evidence to show that the judgment debtor is the owner of the schedule property. In the said circumstances, the 1st respondent/petitioner in the impugned E.As, is entitled to re-delivery of the schedule property and accordingly, allowed the petition. Once the petitioner attached the said property knowing fully well that the judgment debtor is not the owner of the property and that it belongs to the judgment debtor’s parents, he is not entitled to delivery of the same. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the lower court ordering re-delivery, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 18.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4824 and 4825 of 2009 18.11.2011 lmv