ADDANKI AYYANNA Vs. KUNCHALA ANKALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent, under a transaction of a mortgage by conditional sale, put the revision petitioners in possession of the plaint schedule property and had later filed a suit for redemption of mortgage on the ground that the revision petitioners are evading to receive the payment due, in order to deprive her of the plaint schedule property. After contest that suit was decreed, and the suit filed by the mortgagees i.e., second revision petitioner and Ayyanna (first revision petitioner) i.e., father of revision petitioners 3 to 5, against the respondent and another for an injunction, was decreed till recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property in execution of the redemption of the decree passed in the suit filed for redemption.

(2.) Alleging that he deposited the amount within the time granted, respondent filed an E.P. for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. That E.P. was resisted by the second revision petitioner and his brother Ayyanna i.e. father of revision petitioners 3 to 5 on various grounds. By the order under revision the executing Court ordered delivery of the plaint schedule property to the respondent overruling the objections of the revision petitioners that the execution petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the respondent failed to obtain a final decree within time and as the decree sought to be executed is only a preliminary decree and not a final decree. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtors preferred this revision.

(3.) Though there was some dispute about the date of deposit, because of misplacement of record of the trial Court in view of constitution of new Court and transfer of the suit, the learned Counsel for revision petitioners now agreed that the amount was deposited into Court within the time stipulated.