S.RAMESH BABU Vs. N.KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subject-matter in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is proceedings relating to obstruction in execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. The appellant/petitioner is no other than son of the 4th JDr and brother of the 3rd JDr. In execution of money decree against the JDrs, the executing Court sold EP schedule property and it was purchased by the respondent/auction purchaser vide Ex. R1 sale certificate. After enquiry, the executing Court and on appeal, the lower appellate Court rejected application of the appellant/3rd party. At the time of admission of this miscellaneous second appeal, the then learned Judge of this Court neither framed any substantial questions of law nor identified any substantial questions of law. Therefore, endeavour of this Court now is to find out whether any substantial questions of law in particular arise for determination in this miscellaneous second appeal. The appellant/objector contends that he has got 1/4th share in the E.P. schedule properties. The appellant filed O.S. No. 31 of 2004 for partition and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal in AS No. 28 of 2008 is pending in the lower appellate Court It is the appellant's contention, that he has got 1/4th share in the properties on the ground that it is their joint family property. It was the JDrs 3 and 4 who purchased the EP schedule property under Ex. R3 sale deed dated 6.7.1987 from N. Ramalingam who purchased the same from its original owner under Ex. R2 sale deed dated 1.8.1964. When mother and brother of the appellant purchased the schedule property in their own names, the property will not become joint family property or ancestral property. It is not as if purchasers namely JDrs 3 and 4 of the property under Ex. R3 sale deed are no more. In the absence of operation of Hindu Succession Act or Indian Succession Act, the appellant cannot acquire any rights in any portion of the schedule property. It is contended by the respondent's Counsel that the present petition is filed in the executing Court only with a view to help his mother and brother. In fact, previously the 4th JDr namely mother of the appellant herein filed similar petition in the executing Court and she was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the present objector continued the objection by way of the present petition in the executing Court.

(2.) It is contended by the appellant's Counsel that E.P. schedule consists of 7 items of house property. But all the 7 door numbers are for one and the same house, for different portions. PW2 who is the Municipal employee of Hindupur Municipality described that one single composite building was assigned 7 door numbers and it has got 7 electricity connections. All 7 portions described in 7 individual door numbers form part of one and the same composite house. The said position is evident not only in Ex. R3 sale deed but also in the previous sale deed Ex. R2. Delivery warrant entrusted to the Amin gives single door number for the entire composite house with boundaries covering all the portions of the same house. In those circumstances, the Courts below rightly did not uphold objection of the-appellant/objector. It is evident that the objection petition was filed by the objector/appellant in the executing Court with a view to drag on delivery proceedings,

(3.) Of course, there is no guarantee of warranty of title in a Court auction sale. The auction sale in favour of the respondent of the E.P. schedule properties, is always subject to decision of the civil Court in the pending appeal AS No. 16 of 2008.