DACHEPALLI KONDALU Vs. PEDDINTH CHANDRASKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.36 of 2001 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla, against the 2nd respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed, and after decree became the final, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.72 of 2003. An item of property, being residential house, in Piduguralla Village, was attached. At that stage, the appellant herein a third party to the suit, filed E.A.No.758 of 2004, stating that she purchased the property through a Sale Deed, dated 12.02.2001 from the father of the 2nd respondent, and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The link document, dated 06.03.1969, was said to have been handed over to her, by the vendor. The said application was dismissed.

(2.) Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.18 of 2006 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, for declaration of her title, in respect of the schedule property and for consequential perpetual injunction. An interim order is also said to have been obtained in the suit. The suit however was dismissed on 28.10.2010.

(3.) During the pendency of O.S.No.18 of 2006, the property was brought to sale and the appellant emerged as the highest bidder. He filed E.A.No.19 of 2008 under Rule 95 Order XX1 CPC for delivery of possession thereof. At that stage, the 3rd respondent filed E.A.No.42 of 2009 under Rule 97 Order XX1 CPC, raising several objections to the E.A.No.19 of 2008, and asserting her rights over the property. She pleaded that the petition schedule property was not owned by the 2nd respondent, by the time, it was brought to sale in the execution, and at any rate, her absolute rights over the property cannot be defeated. An objection was also raised as to the maintainability of E.A.No.19 of 2008, particularly, from the point of view of limitation. It was urged that the sale was confirmed on 01.12.2004, whereas, the application for delivery of the possession was filed in the year 2008.