THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1677 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.33 of 1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally against respondent No.2 for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, respondent No.1 filed E.P.28 of 1999 and an item of immovable property i.e. a house owned by respondent No.2 was attached. At that stage, the appellant, who is the son of respondent No.2 herein, filed E.A.No.69 of 1999 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. He pleaded that there existed an agreement of sale in his favour vis-à-vis the attached property. The executing Court dismissed the E.A., through order, dated 04.07.2001. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The appellant is none other than the son of the judgment-debtor, respondent No.2 herein. The only basis for him to claim title in the property was an agreement of sale, dated 13.03.1991, marked as Ex.A1. Even this was at a time when he was minor. To prove his case, the appellant examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondent No.1, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. Even assuming that there existed an agreement of sale in favour of the appellant, that too, from his father, it hardly constitutes any basis for title. The sequence of events clearly discloses that it is all the handiwork of respondent No.2 to defeat the decree obtained against him by respondent No.1. The executing Court has examined the matter from the correct perspective and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.07.2010 kdl