KOPPARAPU RATNA KUMARI Vs. BATCHU LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 6-3-2006 made in E.A.No.7 of 2006 in E.P.No.6 of 2004 in O.S.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Petitioner is a third party to the suit proceedings in O.S.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. It is very interesting to notice that respondents 4 to 6 filed a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. However, the suit was dismissed with costs.

(2.) Therefore, defendant-decree holders (respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed E.P.No.6 of 2004 to recover the costs awarded in the suit and sought for attachment and sale of schedule property. The Executing Court ordered for attachment and sale. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present E.A.No.7 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code. It may be noticed that the petitioner herein is the mother of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.12 of 2003. When her property was sought to be attached and put to sale, she filed the present E.A.No.7 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 58 of Civil Procedure Code. It is her case that the schedule property is bequeathed to her by her father under a will deed dated 21-6-1974, which was registered on 5-8-1974. Under the said will, the petitioner has only life interest and after her death, the judgment- debtors/plaintiffs (respondents 4 to 6) were entitled to succeed to the property. Since no interest is transferred in favour of respondents 4 to 6 under the will and they are entitled to the property after her death, the property cannot be either attached or sold. It is the case of respondents 1 to 3 (decree-holders) that under the will, respondents 4 to 6 have a vested interest. Once there is a vested interest created in favour of respondents 4 to 6, the same is also liable to be attached and sold. There is no bar for attaching such property and putting the same to sale for the purpose of realization of the decretal amount.

(3.) The Court below, after considering the contentions of both sides, held that respondents 4 to 6, admittedly, would get title over the property after the death of the petitioner-claimant. If for any reason, the attachment is raised, respondents 4 to 6, who have got the vested reminder may alienate the property; consequently, the attempts of respondents 1 to 3-decree holders to realize the decretal amount would prove futile. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard both sides.