THOTA RAMASWAMY Vs. MAMIDI VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder/auction purchaser filed this civil revision petition under Sec. 115 of C.P.C. assailing the order dtd. 23/8/2017 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Avanigadda in E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999.

(2.) Heard arguments of Sri P.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(3.) Decree holder is the revision petitioner. Judgment debtors are the respondents. O.S.No.107 of 1999 was tried and disposed of by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. In execution of the decree E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 was filed by the decree holder. The prayer was to attach the immovable properties of judgment debtors and put them to sale by way of public auction. Ac.1.63 cents of wet land in R.S.No.417/6 situate in Lakshmipuram Village of Challapalli Sub- Registry belonged to J.Drs. was accordingly attached. They executed warrant of attachment containing the description of boundaries on four sides of the said land. In the auction held D.Hr. became the successful bidder and a sale certificate dtd. 2/7/2009 was grated to him. It is to be recorded here; the sale was held only for 0.63 cents of land. It seems the sale certificate mentioned the boundaries as that were mentioned in the warrant under which attachment was affected for Ac.1.63 cents of land. After issuance of sale certificate D.Hr. prayed for delivery of possession of the property. The Execution Court ordered for delivery. It was at that time in E.A.No.65 of 2010 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 it granted the services of Mandal Surveyor for earmarking boundaries of the property. When that was done it was realized that the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate do not match with the ground realities and therefore the warrant for delivery was returned unexecuted.