Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Aitha Venkata Rama Rao vs Bondada Sree Ramakrishna Paramahamsa ... on 22 April, 2025
APHC010221912019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2287/2019
Between:
Aitha Venkata Rama Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Bondada Sree Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (Died) ...RESPONDENTS
and 5 others Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAVITEJA PADIRI Counsel for the Respondents: A SATYA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL, REPRESENTING
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
2.
3. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU The Court made the following:
Order:
The petitioner in the civil revision petition filed the present application against the orders passed in E.P.No.24 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2009 dated 04-6-2019 in which the executing Court ordered delivery warrant against the E.P. schedule property. Aggrieved against the said order, the revision petitioner filed the present revision petition by challenging the said order.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents herein are not at all the owners of the E.P. schedule property and they obtained a decree from the trial Court and filed the present execution petition for execution of the decree. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondents are not at all the owners of the schedule property and the property shall not be delivered to the respondents herein.
3. Heard Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant and Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri N. Bharath Simha Reddy and Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.
4. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the impugned order passed by the executing Court dated 04-6-2019 is against the facts on record and law prevailing and as such the same is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein without jurisdiction and the plaintiffs/ respondents themselves admitted that the respondents are not the owners of the schedule property and they sold away the schedule property to third parties during the pendency of the suit in the year 2010 and continuation of such suit is nothing but against the law. He would further contend that the civil revision petition may be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the executing Court.
5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the executing Court passed a delivery order and there is no need to interfere with the said order passed by the executing Court and that the civil revision petition may be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the executing Court.
6. The respondents are the decree-holders and the petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor in E.P.No.24 of 2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Bhimavaram. The respondents filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2009 against the petitioner herein and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court, against which the petitioner herein filed first appeal and the first appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the same has been confirmed by the first appellate Judge, against which the second appeal in S.A.No.276 of 2019 has been filed. On hearing both sides, this Court vide a separate judgment dated 22-4-2025 dismissed the second appeal.
7. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would contend that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein without jurisdiction and the respondents alienated the schedule property to third parties during the pendency of the suit and they are not the owners of the schedule property and that the execution petition is not at all maintainable. By the date of filing of the suit, the respondents are the original owners of the plaint schedule property and they instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioner herein from out of the petition schedule property. The same is undisputed by the petitioner herein. The objections sought by the petitioner in the present revision petition were raised by the petitioner in the suit proceedings and he contended that pending suit itself, the respondents herein alienated the petition schedule property to third parties, who are the respondents 7 to 10 in S.A.No.276 of 2019 viz., Bondada Naga Venkata Siva Nageswara Rao, Perumalla Lakshmi Kanaka Durga, Bondada Bangaru Lakshmi and Bondada Naga Venkata Chiranjivi Krishna Chaitanya Kumar. The law is well settled that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, protects the rights of subsequent purchasers. The rights of subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the case will not be changed and they can ultimately step into the shoes of the original owners.
8. It is also well settled that the executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. The duty of the executing Court is to execute the decree alone. It is not the case of the petitioner that the decree passed by the trial Court is set aside by the appellate Court. In fact, the decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court. During the pendency of the second appeal filed by the petitioner, the purchasers of the schedule property filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 before this Court in S.A.No.276 of 2019 and on hearing both sides, this Court allowed the said I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the subsequent purchasers are brought on record in the second appeal. The second appeal filed by the petitioner against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below is also dismissed by this Court vide a separate judgment dated 22-4-2025. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the present civil revision petition.
9. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the executing Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the civil revision petition.
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J