M.PARVATHI Vs. PENUMATCHA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.05.2011, passed by the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in an application filed under Section 47, Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI C.P.C., being E.A. No. 3 of 2009 in E.P. No. 26 of 2008 in O.S. No. 326 of 2007. The facts that gave rise to the filing of the appeal are as under:

(2.) The appellants state that they have purchased three plots of land admeasuring 328, 286.22 & 235.66 square yards, in survey Nos. 59/10p, 59/11c2p & 59/12c, respectively, of Maddilapalem, Vizakhapatnam, in the months of February and March, 2003 from the respective vendors. It was also stated that the three plots are contiguous and that all of them together were leased out to M/s. Sagar Durga Marbles & Granites, Visakhapatnam. Alleging that respondents 1 and 2 are trying to dispossess them, in the name of execution of the decree in O.S. No. 326 of 1998, the appellants filed E.A. No. 3 of 2009 under Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI, read with Section 47 C.P.C. in E.P. No. 26 of 2008. It was pleaded that the very decree obtained by the 1st respondent in O.S. No. 326 of 1998 was fraudulent and collusive and knowing fully well that, none of the parties to the suit are in possession of the land, O.S. No. 326 of 2007 was filed with the sole objective of dispossessing the persons, who are in possession. They have also stated that when their vendors faced threat of dispossession from M/s. Bora Appalareddy, they filed O.S. No. 1 of 1995 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, and that suit has been decreed. The appellants resisted the execution of the decree by asserting title and possession of the property.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 opposed the application. They pleaded that the so-called purchase made by the appellants is long after the decree in O.S. No. 326 of 1998 was filed and there is any amount of discrepancy in the sale deed relied upon by the appellants. It is also pleaded that even according to the appellants, the land claimed by them is substantially different from the one, covered by the decree in O.S. No. 326 of 1998. Other contentions were also raised.