VENNAPUSA PARVATHAMMA Vs. PATHAMIDDE VENKATA BALI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 36 of 2003 against Naguru Pulla Reddy, the father of the appellants herein, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed E.P. No. 402 of 2005. He prayed for attachment of 1/4th share of the land in Sy. No. 834 of Perannagaripalli Village of Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District. The judgment-debtor (J.Dr.), resisted the application by raising several grounds, including the one, under A.P. Agriculture Indebtedness Relief Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act'). The Executing Court allowed the E.P., through its order dated 08-08-2006, and ordered attachment of the property to the extent of 1/4th share in the E.P. schedule property. The J.Dr., died on 26-10-2006. He left behind him, four daughters and three sons. They were brought on record.

(2.) The appellants herein, who are four daughters and one son, filed E.A. No. 269 of 2006, under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., with a prayer to raise attachment. According to them, the land in Sy. No. 834 is an ancestral property and the share of the deceased-J.Dr., was only 1/8th. The appellants 1 to 4 have also based their claims on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended in the recent past. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. Through its order dated 30-08-2009, the Executing Court dismissed the E.A. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S. No. 7 of 2009 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 01-09-2009. Hence, the Second Appeal, under Section 100 C.P.C.

(3.) Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the Executing Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have proceeded on the assumption that the land in Sy. No. 834 was the self-acquisition of the J.Dr., whereas, even according to the 1st respondent, it was ancestral property. He contends that the view taken by the Courts below that the attachment has become final, and it cannot be questioned by the legal heirs, is not correct, and not being the parties to the decree, the appellants herein answer the description of third parties, to avail the remedy under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. He further contends that the 1st respondent, who is none other than the cousin brother of the deceased-J.Dr., suppressed several facts and has fraudulently purchased the property in the Court auction, taking advantage of the old age of the J.Dr.