KONAKALLA RAMA RAO Vs. YARLAGADDA VENKATA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same facts and raise the same questions of law.

(2.) The petitioner in these revision petitions is the decree holder in O S 101 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Eluru. The said suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement for the sale of the suit property against judgment debtor No. 1 and his two minor sons judgment debtors 2 and 3. On 27-2-76 the suit was decreed granting time to the decree holder to deposit purchase money on or before 31-5-76. However the amount was not deposited within the period specified by the Court but was deposited long thereafter on 29-8-77. The decree holder filed E P No 160 of 1978 against all the three judgment debtors for execution and registration of the sale-deed pursuant to the decree. Judgment debtor No. 1 filed E A No. 995 of 82 and judgment debtors 2 and 3 filed E A No. 988 of 82 in the said execution petition under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act praying to grant rescission of the contract for sale dated 9-11-74 stating that the purchase money was Dot deposited by the decree holder within the time specified in the decree. The decree holder contended that the agreement could not be rescinded in execution proceedings and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. It was further stated that the judgment debtors filed application for setting aside the exparte decree and after the same was dismissed they took the matter in appeal to the High Court which was also dismissed as not pressed therefore the decree had become final and could not be challenged or set aside. The executing Court allowed the said petitions (E As.) on 31-3-87. Against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in E A No. 995 of 82 C R P No. 1985 of 87 is preferred and against the order in E A 988 of 1982 CRP No. 2531 of 1987 is preferred. When these C R Ps, came up before Ramanujulu Naidu J the learned Judge framed the following questions :

(3.) Sri T Veerabhadraiah the learned counsel for the petitioner in these revision petitions contends that the applications filed by judgment-debtors in the execution petition to rescind the contract for the sale of suit property are misconceived and that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain much less to allow them in execution proceedings.