VOBILINENI RAJ KUMAR Vs. DUDALA VEERA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) SINCE both the learned Counsel have made submissions on the merits of the appeal itself, by this judgment, the appeal is being disposed of.

(3.) THE averments of the petitioner, in the said application, show that he claims to be the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property having purchased from the second respondent, and his mother, under a registered GPA -cum -possessory sale agreement dated 16.3.2009. It is also alleged that the petition schedule property originally belonged to the father of the second respondent who did, in his lifetime, execute a registered Will dated 11.10.1995 bequeathing the property to his wife and, later, the wife of the original owner, who is the mother of the second respondent, sold the petition schedule property to the petitioner under a registered agreement of sale dated 16.3.2009 referred to above. The petitioner, therefore, contends that, since he is the owner of the petition schedule property, it cannot be sold in execution of decree in OS No.433 of 2007 obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent. The attachment of the property was sought for by the decree holder against which the aforesaid claim petition was filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.