DEVU VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. GOLLAPALLI LATCHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-4-1988 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1985 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 5.10.1982 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in E.A. No.46 of 1982 in E.P. No.247 of 1978 in O.S. No.46 of 1976, filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the Code), allowing the petition for setting aside the sale holding that there was no sale in the eye of law and the same was treated as nullity on the ground that the petitioners herein have no saleable interest in the suit schedule property and they have played fraud both on the respondents and the Court.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell, leading to the filing of this revision petition, are that the first respondent who was the decree holder in OS No. 47 of 1976, brought the properties of the respondents 2 to 4 for sale in execution of the decree and the sale was held on 30.9.1981, which were purchased by the petitioner for Rs.21,000/-. The sale was confirmed and sale certificate was to be issued. While so, on 27.12.1981 the petitioner went to Karapa village and enquired with Village Karnam with regard to the property purchased by him and came to know that the respondents have surrendered the land purchased by him to the Government under the Land Ceiling Act with an intention to defeat the decree debt and also the rights of the auction purchaser. He also came to know that the land was allotted for house sites. It is further stated that the petitioner bid the auction thinking that the respondents were the owners of the property and as on the date of auction he was unaware that the respondents have no saleable interest and thus, the respondents played fraud both on the petitioner and the Court, that they have made part payments for some time and suddenly stopped in view of suppression of the above mentioned fact in their counter and it is only on 27-12-1981, the petitioner came to know about the fraud committed by the respondents 2 to 4.

(3.) The above application was resisted by the respondents 2 to 4 in the above said EA 46 of 1982 contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition after confirmation of sale and the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition under Order 21, Rule 91 of the Code after the sale is confirmed. It is further contended that the petitioner is the son of the decree holder and the EP was pending since long time and counter was filed long time back stating that the proceedings under the Land Ceiling Act are pending. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner to verify. The allegation that the petitioner came to know about the surrender of purchased land only on 27-12-1981 and that the respondents 2 to 4 have no saleable interest is denied. It is further stated that the decree holder was receiving the part payments and got the property auctioned and the purchaser is entitled to whatever compensation paid by the Government and he cannot seek to set aside the sale, that the petitioner is an Engineer in PWD Department and is only a representative of the decree-holder and the respondents 2 to 4 never represented that they have any saleable interest. It is further contended that the petition is barred by time.