KOTAKADI LAKSHMI DEVI Vs. BADAM NAGESWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases relate to same subject matter and between the same parties. Hence, I am disposing both of them by this common judgment.

(2.) CRP No. 1918/1998 is filed by the judgment-debtor in OS No.494 of 1984, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20-4-1998 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool on EA No.672 of 1997 in EP No.364 of 1996 in OS No.494 of 1984. It has to be noted at this stage itself that B. Nageswara Reddy filed a suit in OS No.494 of 1984 against B. Laxmi Devi for specific performance of the contract on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 18-6-1984. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17-7-1985 and the said decree has become final. In those circumstances,' decree holder filed an execution petition against the judgment-debtor for executing the sale-deed. As the judgment-debtor did not execute the sale-deed, it was the Court that ultimately executed the sale-deed, it was the Court that ultimately executed the sale-deed in EP No.231 /1985. The decree-holder also filed an execution petition for possession in terms of the decree. On that petition, the executing Court ordered the delivery of the possession to the decree-holder. When the Ameen went to the suit site, he found that the judgment-debtor has encroached the suit schedule property by putting up construction. In those circumstances, Ameen returned the delivery warrant mentioning these facts. The decree-holder filed another petition requesting the Court to deliver the property by demolishing the constructions made by the judgment-debtor over the suit site subsequent to the decree. To that petition, the judgment-debtor filed a counter stating that the decree-holder had already taken possession of the portion of the site sold to him under agreement of sale and also encroached over the site belonging to the judgment-debtor. It is further stated that the judgment-debtor also filed a separate suit in OS No.3 12 of 1990. The said suit being dismissed, an appeal was pending in AS No.65 of 1996. On these grounds, the judgment-debtor prayed for the dismissal of the execution petition. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed EA No.672 of 1997 in EP No.364 of 1996 in OS No.494 of 1984, directing the Ameen to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule site measuring in all one cent to the plaintiff by demolishing the construction made by the judgment-debtor. It is in these circumstances, the judgment-debtor has filed the above revision petition in CRP No.1918of 1998.

(3.) As I have already staled above, the judgment-debtor has filed a separate suit for perpetual injunction in OS No.312 of 1990 on the file of II Additional Principal District Munsif, Kurnool. The said Munsif Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1-7-1996 and the appeal filed by the judgment-debtor in AS No.65/ 1996 on the of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool was also dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is in these circumstances, the judgment-debtor has filed a separate appeal in SA No.539/1998. This appeal is also placed before me for disposal today. Having regard to these circumstances, I think it appropriate to refer the parties as per the ranking assigned to them in OS No 494/1984, as the decree-holder and judgment-debtor for the sake of convenience.