THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4909 OF 2009 DATED: 28.01.2010 Between: Maram Anjaiah and another .. Petitioners And Madduluru Narayana Raju and another .. Respondents ORDER: Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein laid the suit O.S.No.154 of 1987 on the file of the Principal District Munsif’s Court, Nellore, against the petitioners herein, for recovery of money, and the said suit was decreed on 11.09.1989. Since the petitioners- judgment debtors failed to satisfy the decree, respondent No.1-decree holder filed the present E.P.No.191 of 1990, praying the Court below to attach and sell the petition schedule immovable property and realize the decretal amount. The Court below, having attached the petition schedule property, brought the same to sale, by way of auction on 02.11.1995, and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the highest bidder, the 2nd respondent herein, by issuing sale certificate. Assailing the same, the judgment debtors filed the present civil revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the property sold in auction was assigned to the petitioners by the Government, vide proceedings dated 13.08.1990, and thus the same cannot be sold in auction. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the property sold in auction was purchased by the petitioners-judgment debtors for consideration and the petition in E.A.No.8 of 1996 filed by the petitioners, before confirmation of sale, seeking to set aside the sale conducted on 02.11.1995, was dismissed by the Court below, disbelieving the version of the petitioners that the subject property was assigned to them vide proceedings dated 13.08.1990 and also taking note of the admission of the petitioners that they pledged the title deeds of the subject property while obtaining the suit amount i.e. much prior to 13.08.1990. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the plea of the judgment debtors that the property sold in auction was assigned to them, vide proceedings dated 13.08.1990, was disbelieved by the Court below, after considering the matter in detail. A perusal of the order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Court below in E.A.No.8 of 1996 in E.P.No.191 of 1990 also discloses that the judgment debtors themselves admitted that they pledged the title deeds of the subject property while obtaining the suit amount, which makes it clear that they were in possession of the subject property prior to the alleged date of assignment i.e. 13.08.1990. Thus, the sale of the property cannot be said to be improper. Even otherwise, the sale was confirmed long back on 11.04.2000 and the 2nd respondent was also stated to have been put in possession of the property. Viewed from any angle, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 28th January, 2010. IBL