Dismissed

Mylapuru Dora Raja v. Narapareddy Padmamma

Telangana HC29 Sept 2010CRP/3127/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227, the Court dismissed the petition seeking attachment of a sum held by an advocate. The Court held that since the underlying suit for specific performance was compromised and withdrawn, the money ceased to be liable for attachment, reverting to the original defendants.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order cancelled; 4th respondent permitted to disburse amount to 3rd respondent.

Mylapuru Dora Raja Vs Narapareddy Padmamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

CRP NO.3127 OF 2010

¶3

29-09-2009

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mylapuru Dora Raju son of Sundaraiah

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

N.Padmamma and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CRP.NO.3127 OF 2010

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order made in I.A.No.601 of 2009 in O.S.No.332 of 2009 dated 19-06-2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC for attachment of Rs.2,50,000/lying in the hands of 4^th respondent belonging to 3^rd respondent, before judgment, was dismissed.

¶13

Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are defendants. Petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.332 of 2009 for recovery of money on the basis of a pronote purported to have been executed by the husband of the 1^st respondent and father of the 2^nd respondent. It appears the 2^nd respondent died during the pendency of suit. Therefore, the 1^st respondent alone remains. During the pendency of the suit, present I.A.601 of 2009 is filed.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that husband of the 1^st respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of 3^rd respondent for sale of immovable property and 3^rd respondent filed suit being O.S.No.215 of 2008 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur seeking specific performance of agreement of sale. However, it appears during the pendency of that suit O.S.No.215 of 2008, the court below directed to deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs into court, which is the balance amount to be paid, and the 3^rd respondent purported to have given that money to the 4^th respondent, who is his Advocate, for being deposited into the court. Later, the parties in said suit entered into compromise before the Lok Adalat and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Now, the present application i.e., I.A.No.601 of 2009 is filed in the suit by the plaintiff stating that in view of the directions of the learned Senior Civil Judge,

¶15

Gudur in O.S.No.215 of 2008, during the pendency of suit, the 3^rd respondent gave an amount of Rs.2.5 lakh to the 4^th respondent for the purpose of depositing into the court and since there was a compromise, the said amount was still lying with the 4^th respondent and therefore the said amount be attached during the pendency of suit. In this regard, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore recorded his findings as under:-

¶16

“a) The suit is based on the pronote executed by one Prasad Reddy, the husband of the first respondent and father of 2^nd respondent. By filing the suit, the petitioner has prayed for attachment of the amount stood under the agreement of sale said to be executed by Prasad Reddy in favour of 3^rd respondent and which is kept with 4^th respondent/advocate of 3^rd respondent who filed suit O.S.215 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale against respondents 1 and 2 herein. Petitioner can execute the decree against the property of Prasad Reddy linging in the hands of his legal heirs i.e., respondents 1 and 2. Since the property of Prasad Reddy was sold under n agreement of sale and as the part of consideration is paid to 4^th respondent/advocate for depositing the same into court of law, petitioner has sought for attachment of such amount as it pertains to Prasad Reddy and the husband of first respondent.

¶17

b) But subsequently the 3^rd respondent, the purchaser under an agreement of sale compromised the suit O.S.No.215/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur. He has withdrawn the suit for specific performance based on the agreement of sale executed by Prasad Reddy. If it is so, the property sold by Prasad Reddy under the said agreement of sale reverts back and it devolves upon respondents 1 and 2 as the estate of the deceased Prasad Reddy. If so, the petitioner may attach the said immovable property belonging to the said Prasad Reddy. He cannot attach the amount lying in the hands of 4^th respondent/advocate, as the said agreement of sale was withdrawn. Hence this petition does not lie. The interim attachment order passed pertaining to the amount stood under the said agreement of sale executed by Prasad Reddy in fvour of 3^rd respondent is withdrawn. This

¶18

point is decided accordingly in favour of 3^rd respondent.

¶19

In the result, petition is dismissed and the pro-order dated 1-7-09 is cancelled and the 4^th respondent/respondent can disburse the amount in his hands pertaining to the said agreement of sale of the subject matter of O.S.215/08 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur to the 3^rd respondent.”

¶20

From the above, it is clear that as soon as the matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat, the suit in O.S.No.215 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur out lived its purpose and nothing can be claimed to say that either in view of the compromise or otherwise, the 4^th respondent was holding money of Rs.2.5 lakhs on behalf of the 3^rd respondent and therefore he becomes a garnishee and the same is liable for attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC. The learned Judge has rightly pointed out that if the property sold by Prasad Reddy, husband of the 1^st respondent, under the agreement of sale reverts back and it devolves upon respondents 1 and 2 herein as the estate of the deceased-Prasad Reddy, then the petitioner may seek attachment of the said immovable property and not otherwise.

¶21

Therefore, I am of the opinion the order passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore is well considered and reasoned one.

¶22

This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the discretion exercised by the court below, warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶24

29^th SEPTEMBER 2010 TSNR

¶25

_____________ C.V.RAMULU,J

Mylapuru Dora Raja v. Narapareddy Padmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mylapuru Dora Raja v. Narapareddy Padmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patan Saheb Khan (died) Vs Kurapati Srimannarayana

M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs M/s. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., ( Aptransco)

M/s. Mahalakshmi Rubber Industries, Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P., Ltd.

Kimidi Malavika D/o Dr. K. Ganapathi Rao Vs Dr. Ntr University of Health Sciences

Sri Venkateswara Educational Society, Dubbaka, Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary

budiga Madhu Vs A.P. Board of Secondary Education, rep. by its Secretary