IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1299 of 2011 Between: P.Narender ..... PETITIONER AND Munigela Anila .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1299 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is preferred by the Judgment Debtor in E.P.4/2004, who suffered a money decree in O.S.17/1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal. The respondent/Decree Holder has sought to proceed against 6 items of the property of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, as shown in the schedule attached to the E.P.4/2004. The controversy in this revision relates to Item-5 thereof. The petitioner/judgment debtor states that the said Item-5 was conveyed by him in favour of his son pending the suit, and as such, no proceedings can be taken with respect to the said Item-5 in the E.P. While considering the said objection, the Executing Court went into that aspect and came to reject the objections of the petitioner/judgment debtor by ordering attachment of items-2 to 5 of the E.P.schedule properties, by holding that the said conveyance by the petitioner/judgment debtor in favour of his son was only to defeat the decree holder’s right and cannot be recognized under law, and the said transfer is subject to lis pendens under Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. That order is questioned in this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. There is no controversy among the learned counsel that there was no attachment or restraint on any of the E.P.schedule properties pending suit. In law, therefore, there was no impediment for the petitioner/judgment debtor to sell or convey any of his properties to his son, including item-5 of the E.P.schedule properties. Since the suit was a money suit, Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, per se, does not apply, and it cannot be said that there is lis pendens applicable to any such transfer or conveyance. In the absence of any restraint order on the petitioner/judgment debtor, the observation of the Court below that Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies, and such transfer/conveyance cannot be recognized under law is legally unsustainable. However, if there is a transfer/conveyance in favour of son of the petitioner/judgment debtor, it is for such transferee to agitate his rights and it is not for the petitioner/judgment debtor to object to the execution. In that view of the matter also, the order impugned, cannot be questioned by the petitioner/judgment debtor. In the circumstances, the order of the Executing Court, directing attachment of the E.P.schedule properties is sustained, but for the different reasons, as mentioned above. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 29.08.2011 Dsr