A PRAMILA Vs. G V RATHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ramana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J.V. Suryanarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The admitted facts of this C.R.P. are as follows: The petitioners are the respondents-judgment-debtors. The suit O.S.No.388/82 was filed on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for specific performance of open site measuring 1136 Sq. yards equivalent to 943 Sq. metres. It is submitted that the petitioners are the transferees of the property from defendant No.1 and as such, they were added as defendants Nos.2 and 3 during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit on 28-11-1984. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred appeal i.e., A.S.No.2357/85 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 24-2-88. Again the petitioners preferred L.P.A.No. 132 of 1988 and the same was also dismissed on 13-11-1992. The petitioners carried the matter to the Supreme Court by S.L.P.No. 3957/93 and the same was also dismissed on 27-4-1993. After the dismissal of the S.L.P., the respondent-decree holder preferred E.P.No.25/93 on 30-4-93 for the execution of the sale deed as the petitioners-judgment-debtors did not execute the sale deed. The sale deed was executed by the Court on 16-4-1993 and registered on 17-4-1993. It is submitted that after the registration of the sale deed on 17-4-1993, the respondent-decree holder preferred E.A.No. 25 /93 for possession of the plaint schedule property. The executing Court after hearing the arguments of both the parties has allowed the E. A. on 9-9-1993 and the respondent-decree-holder was put in possession of the plaint schedule land on 17-9-1993.

(3.) In this C.R.P., the petitioners challenge the legality of the order passed by the executing Court.