K N SUBBALAKSHMI Vs. M SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the C.R.P. are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the self-same execution proceedings between the same parties.

(2.) A.S.No.2769 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 22-6-1992 passed in E.A. No.117 of 1991 in E.P.No.16 of 1991 in O.S.No.149 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur whereby the claim-petition filed by the first respondent under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. was allowed and the attachment over the schedule property was raised. C.R.P. No.2744 of 1992 is directed against the consequential order passed in E.P.No.16 of 1991 in O.S. No.149/90 dismissing the E.P. The facts leading to the appeal and revision may be stated briefly.

(3.) The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in A.S. No.2769 of 1992. The second respondent was the owner of an extent of Acs.2.38 cents of agricultural land which was leased out by him to the first respondent. The second respondent filed a petition against the first respondent for eviction from the said land under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act. But the said petition was dismissed by the tenancy tribunal. Subsequently the second respondent purported to sell the said property to the appellant by a registered sale deed d ated 11-6-1984. The first respondent, who was the cultivating tenant in possession of the land, thereupon filed A.T.C.No.57 of 1984 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Kovvur, for cancellation of the said sale deed claiming that he (first respondent) has got a preferential right under Section 15 of the Andhra Tenancy Act to purchase the land whenever the landlord proposed to alienate it. The said application filed by the first respondent was allowed by the Special Officer by an order dated 24-1-1990 declaring that the sale deed dated 11-6-1984 is not valid or binding on the first respondent and that the first respondent has got a preferential right under Section 15 to purchase the land. Pursuant to the said orders passed by the Tenancy Tribunal the first respondent filed A.T.C. No.54 of 1991 on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Kovvur for fixation of the price at which the land has to be sold in favour of the first respondent. The appellant in turn filed O.S.No.149 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, against the second respondent for recovery of the sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- allegedly paid by him to the second respondent under the sale deed dated 11-6-1984 which was declared as invalid by the tenancy Court. An ex parte decree was passed in the suit in favour of the appellant on 19-10-1990. In execution of the said decree obtained by him against the second respondent the appellant filed E.P.No.16 of 1991 for attachment and sale of the self-same land for realisation of the decretal amount. On attachment being ordered in the said E.P., the first respondent filed E.A. No.117 of 1991 in E.P. No.16 of 1991 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. to raise the attachment over the property contending, inter alia, that the decree obtained by the appellant against the second respondent in O.S. No.149/90 is collusive and fraudulent and that the land in his possession is not liable for attachment and sale in view of the order passed in A.T.C. No.57 of 1984. The said claim-petition was resisted by the appellant/decree-holder contending that Section 15 of the Andhra Tenancy Act is not a bar for attachment and sale of the property in execution of the decree lawfully obtained by him and that the property can be sold in the execution proceedings subject to the rights of the first respondent as the cultivating tenant.