ADINARAYANA Vs. S GAFOOR SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur in E.P. 99/95 in O.S.No. 46/92.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the decree- holder in O.S.No. 46 of 1992. He filed E.P.No. 99 of 1995 for realization of the decretal amount through attachment and sale of the schedule property. At the time of filing the suit, the decree-holder filed I.A. No. 194 of 1992 and attachment before judgment was ordered on 5-3-1992 under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC. Subsequent to the decree, he filed E.P. 99 of 1995 in O.S. No. 46 of 1992 for attachment and sale of the schedule property. The judgment debtors (J.Drs.) resisted the execution petition contending that the schedule house was conveyed in favour of Tarimala Nabi Sab by way of a registered sale deed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur as per the orders in E.P. 119 of 1992 in O.S. No. 56 of 1992 dated 7-8-1993 and possession was also delivered on same day. The purchaser, Sri Tarimala Nabi Sab was inducted into possession of the schedule house prior to the date of attachment. Since the J.Drs. are no more owners of the property, the E.P. cannot be maintained, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The purchaser of the property by name Tarimala Nabi Sab was added as one of the respondents in that E.P. and he filed a counter stating that the schedule house was sold to him on 15-6-1990 by the judgment debtors under an agreement of sale and as the J.Drs. failed to execute the sale deed, he filed O.S.No. 56 of 1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ananthapur and it was decreed in his favour directing the J.Drs. to execute the sale deed. Since the J.Drs. failed to execute the sale deed, he filed E.P. 119 of 1992 and got the sale deed executed by the Court on 7-8-1993. He further contended that as he had no knowledge about the attachment of the property and as the purchase of the property was to the knowledge of the decree-holder, the E.P. is liable to be dismissed with costs.