Disposed

Jetti Appa Rao, v. Rokkam Venata Rao

Telangana HC8 Apr 2011CRP/1893/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition against an order in an execution petition concerning the delivery of possession of undivided property. The court directed that since partition between the parties had not been specifically pleaded or explored, a fresh execution petition was required instead of binding the parties on this partition issue.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed; Decree holder to file fresh execution petition seeking specific share after proper inquiry into partition.

Jetti Appa Rao, Vs Rokkam Venata Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1893 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

Jetti Appa Rao

…PETITIONER

AND

Rokkam Venkata Rao and others

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1893 OF 2010

¶15

O R D E R:

¶16

The revision is filed against the order of the I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in E.A.No.89 of 2008 in E.P.No.70 of 2006 in O.S.No.15 of 2004.

¶17

2. The application was filed to deliver the possession of schedule property after evicting the judgment debtors there from. The decree holder is the revision petitioner herein.

¶18

3. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. The objections are

¶19

raised by the third parties about the executability of the decree saying that the property is not divided and the decree-holder has got only undivided 1/3^rd share in item No.2 of the schedule properties. The lower court taking into consideration the fact that the sale deed was executed for an undivided 1/3^rd share of the properties, the claim for delivery with regard to item No.2 was not accepted and dismissed the claim with regard to item No.2.

¶20

4. Evidently, the counsel for the petitioner represents that the contention of the respondents is that already there was partition that has taken place and the question of going further to a suit for partition in pursuance of the sale deed executed by the Court does not arise. Evidently, this was not pleaded before the lower Court saying that there was a partition between the brothers and identified 1/3^rd share of the property was given to the judgment debtor, which is sought to be delivered to the petitioner. In fact, it requires an enquiry before the Court and the respondents herein are permitted to withdraw with liberty to the decree holder to file a fresh execution petition narrating the events as to how even without a suit for partition the decree holder will be entitled to a specific share in the property. Any of the findings recorded in this petition therefore cannot be considered as binding in the subsequent application to be filed and decided by the lower court after giving opportunity to the judgment debtor and also objectors, who should also be added as parties to the proceedings.

¶21

5. Accordingly Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

________________________

¶23

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶24

INL

¶25

Date: 08-04-2011.

Jetti Appa Rao, v. Rokkam Venata Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jetti Appa Rao, v. Rokkam Venata Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Leonars Company and Another Vs R.Yellaiah Sharma and 4 Others

M. Suguna Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

M/s. Leonars Company Vs R. Yellaiah Sharma , R. Yellaiah

Gollapally Kistaiah Vs Baswapuram Narsaiah

R.Ramulu and Another Vs K.Satyavathi and 2 Others

Pulchand Patil Vs Khandavalli Veera Venkata Ramanamurthy