LAWS(APH)-2004-8-104

G VEERESHAM Vs. D V SHAILENDRA KUMARI

Decided On August 20, 2004
G.VEERESHAM Appellant
V/S
D.V.SHAILENDRA KUMARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in O.S. No.928 of 1992 on the file of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has filed this C.M.A., aggrieved by an order passed by the executing Court, accepting the claim submitted by the 1st respondent under Rule 99 of Order 21 C.P.C.

(2.) The appellant filed O.S. No.928 of 1992 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11-5-1990, in relation to an extent of 310 sq.yards in premises bearing No.lO-5-2/l/l/A, of Masab Tank, Hyderabad. The suit was decreed ex parte on 5-7-1993. He filed E.P. No.40 of 1993 for execution of the decree. Since the 2nd respondent did not comply with the decree, the Court itself executed the sale deed on 25-7-1995. The appellant was inducted into possession only on 2-2-1999.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed E.A. No.8 of 1999 under Rule 99 of Order 21 C.P.C., alleging that the appellant dispossessed her from the property in premises No.10-5-2/1/ 36/2, under the guise of the decree. She pleaded that she purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 17-1-1966, and ever since then, she has been in continuous possession of the land. It was also her case that she constructed the compound wall, and when the same was sought to be demolished, she filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained necessary orders. According to her, there is no comparison between the property, in respect of which the sale deed was executed and the one that was delivered to the appellant. The appellant resisted the E.A. On behalf of the 1st respondent, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-22 were marked. The Trial Court appointed Advocate Commissioner to identify the property. The report and sketch submitted by him were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. The appellant has not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Through the order under appeal, the executing Court accepted the claim of the 1st respondent, and directed the bailiff of the Court to put her into possession of the property.