SOMU ADINARAYANA Vs. BALANAGU SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1st respondent obtained a decree for specific performance against the revision petitioner and filed EP for executing the said decree. In that EP, revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC for recording satisfaction or adjustment of the said decree alleging that the decree put to execution was adjusted out of Court by the decree holder by receiving money from him. During the pendency of that petition, 1st respondent died and so his son was brought on record as 2nd respondent. He filed his counter denying adjustment between the deceased-1st respondent and the revision petitioner.

(2.) In support of his case, the revision petitioner besides examining himself as PW1 examined three other witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On his behalf 2nd respondent besides examining himself as R.W1 examined two other witnesses as R.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.Bl to B9. Exs.X1 to X3 were marked through R.W.3.

(3.) The Executing Court disbelieved Ex. A1 receipt of adjustment said to have been executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the revision petitioner, and dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.