YERRA MADHUBABU Vs. SAM UMA LAKSHMI KANTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order, dtd. 22/11/2017, passed in O.S.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Court of X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam.

(2.) Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel the respondents/defendants.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of registered non-possessory agreement of sale-cumgeneral power of attorney, dtd. 10/12/2019, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant alleging fraud and collusion. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, against the 1st defendant for recovery of amount due under the promissory note, dtd. 30/6/2008, executed by the 1st defendant. As the 1st defendant failed to discharge the same, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.342 of 2009 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 seeking attachment of the schedule property before judgment. In spite of giving an undertaking not to alienate the schedule property, the 1st defendant filed counter stating that the schedule property was mortgaged to State Bank of Hyderabad, Machilipatnam, towards security and the 1st defendant already alienated the schedule property and has no salable interest over the same. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the property hypothecated to the State Bank of Hyderabad and the schedule property in I.A.No.342 of 2009 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 are one and the same and the registered nonpossessory agreement-cum-general power of attorney is created with a view to defeat and delay the suit claim of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed.