THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 of 2011 Dated:29.12.2011 Between: Smt.Killampalli Kasulamma. …Petitioner and Smt.Chellu Padma. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.26 of 2010 in O.S.No.638 of 2005. By impugned order dated 12.09.2011 passed in the said E.P the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, allowed the E.P and ordered sale of the attached property. The respondent obtained the decree and filed the E.P under Order XXI Rules 22, 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for attachment and sale of the petition schedule property. The petitioner herein took the plea that she is not exclusive owner of the petition schedule property and that it being the ancestral property she got only 1/9th share. She also submitted that she has no objection to sell the property admeasuring Ac.0.36 cents in survey No.81/12. During the enquiry, the decree holder did not adduce any evidence. The judgment debtor deposed as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 and R2. Her son deposed as R.W.2. On considering the evidence the execution Court overruling the objections of the judgment debtor, allowed the petition for sale. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated by error and that ordering sale of entire property instead of 1/9th share of judgment debtor is unsustainable in law. The Court below held that the judgment debtor is exclusive owner of the property based on the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. The judgment debtor contended that she and her eight children have share in the property, which remained unproved. Though she referred to pattadar pass books and title deeds they were not produced, and therefore, an adverse inference was drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The reasoning of the Court below is, therefore, sound, and the plea of the Counsel cannot be accepted. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 29.12.2011 vs