MUSTI VENKATA KRISHNA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. PRABHALA SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.L.N.G.K. Murthy and Mr. M. Ram Mohan representing Mr. M.S.R. Siibrahmanyam, the Counsel representing the respective parties.

(2.) The dispute relates to the execution of a maintenance decree. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor No.14 in E.P.No.28/99 in O.S.No.282/72 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole. The decree-holder filed E.P. No.28/99 under Order 21, Rules 64 and 66 CPC for sale of charged property for realisation of the decretal amount with subsequent interest and costs. The revision petitioner had filed a counter raising the question regarding the liability of the 13th defendant ahead of the 14th defendant i.e., the present revision petitioner. The Court below had overruled the objections raised by the revision petitioner-14th judgment debtor and had posted the E.P. for settlement of terms and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner.

(3.) The facts in brief are that one Musti Rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Suryanarayana Sarma, filed O.S. No.282/72 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Razole for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.100/- to Rs.1,000/- per month and the case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that her step sons etc., had executed a registered maintenance deed dated 6.9.1933 in her favour providing for her maintenance and creating a charge over the plaint schedule properties and other properties for maintenance and subsequent thereto, the joint and several liability was split up as per the decree in O.S. No.36 of 1949 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Razole, and as per the terms of the said decree, an amount of Rs.100/- per annum was payable by each branch to the plaintiff and inasmuch as the amounts were not being paid regularly, the plaintiff therein had obtained separate maintenance decree against her step sons and their legal representatives and had obtained a decree in O.S. No.16/1958 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Razole, against defendant Nos.1 to 6 wherein a charge was created over the properties described in the plaint schedule and the 7th defendant was an alienee subsequent to the decree in O.S.No.16/58 and that she was entitled to enhancement of maintenance. Defendant Nos.l3 and 14 were impleaded in the suit as subsequent purchasers and 13th defendant purchased items 2 to 5 of the plaint schedule property in a Court auction sale in the year 1959 subject to the maintenance decree against the 1 st defendant and others and subsequently, items 3 to 5 were sold to 12th defendant by way of registered sale deed, dated 28.12.1970 and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sold items 6 and 7 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.9.1942 to the father of 14th defendant and thus, 14th defendant inherited the said property from his father. Defendant Nos.l to 6 sold item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property along with some other properties to the 14th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 1.9.1963 and 14th defendant had taken a specific plea in the written statement in the suit itself that the purchase by the 13th defendant being in a Court auction sale in 1959 subject to the maintenance charge against the 1st defendant and others, the plaintiff can claim relief only against 13th defendant and not against 14th defendant for items 1, 6 and 7. There was enhancement of maintenance from Rs.100/- to Rs.1,000/- by a decree dated 31.7.1984 declaring charge over all the plaint schedule properties specified as items 1 to 7 for realisation of the maintenance amount due to the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said decree, the revision petitioner filed A.S. No.31/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Razole and the said appeal was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, S.A. No.138/98 on the file of this Court was filed and the same was dismissed at the stage of admission. But, however, while dismissing the second appeal, certain observations had been made relating to the inter se disputes of 13th and 14th defendants. In the present E.P., the revision petitioner filed a counter specifically raising the question relating to the liability of the 13th defendant, ahead of 14th defendant. 13th defendant as such had not filed any counter. However, the E.P. was not pressed against 13th defendant and accordingly, the E.P. was dismissed as against 13th defendant on 22.12.1999 and the E.P. is being further proceeded with against 14th defendant only for realisation of the entire decretal amount.