Partly allowed

Sri Tumati Rajan Babu, v. Sri Bandaru Vithal Rao

Telangana HC28 Nov 2012CRP/4363/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition where the lower court sold a schedule property without determining the judgment debtors' shares. Since the decree holder was not a party to prior suits affecting the property, the order was remanded for a necessary enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the Court below for conducting necessary enquiry and deciding the share of judgment debtors.

Sri Tumati Rajan Babu, Vs Sri Bandaru Vithal Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.R.P.No. 4363 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. aggrieved by order dated 04-08-2011 passed in E.P.No.54 of 2010 in O.S.No.75 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District (E.P).

¶4

The petitioner herein is the decree holder in the E.P. and plaintiff in the suit whereas the respondents herein are the judgment debtors in the E.P. and defendants in the suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the E.P.

¶5

The decree holder filed the suit for recovery of Rs.8,61,532-63 ps and it was decreed. Thereafter he filed the E.P. for the execution of the decree by way of selling the E.P. schedule property. The Court below, through the impugned order, held that the decree holder was entitled to proceed against 2/8^th share in the schedule property observing that by virtue of the decree passed in O.S.No.41 of 2003 on the file of the same Court and O.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, he got only that much extent.

¶6

Learned counsel for the decree holder would submit that the decree holder was not a party to those two suits by virtue of which the judgments and decrees passed in those suits are not binding upon them. Further no enquiry was conducted in the E.P. with regards to the determination of the rights of the judgment debtors in the schedule property. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is not proper and it is liable to be set aside.

¶7

Learned counsel for the judgment debtors has asserted that the order passed by the Court below is quite proper to interfere with.

¶8

It is not in dispute that the decree holder was not a party to the said suits by reason of which the decrees and judgments passed in those suits are not binding upon him. Unless necessary enquiry is

¶9

conducted, the question of ascertaining the share of the judgment debtors would not arise at all. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below is not proper. By virtue of that, the matter is to be remanded to the Court below for adducing necessary evidence and disposing of the matter on that basis.

¶10

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for the purpose of conducting necessary enquiry and deciding the share of the judgment debtors in the schedule property.

¶11

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequent upon the disposal of the C.R.P., miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶13

Date:28-11-2012 YCR

Sri Tumati Rajan Babu, v. Sri Bandaru Vithal Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tumati Rajan Babu, v. Sri Bandaru Vithal Rao

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

Kanchubariki Appalakonda, Vs Smt. Kanchubariki Venkayyamma

Kothalanka Durga Vara Prasada Rao Vs Vannemreddy Srinivasulu

GullapaIli Aruna, Vs Gullapalli Balakrishna

The Institutte of Charted Financial Analyst of India Vs Cfa Institute ( formerly Known as Association

Sri Sri Sri Radhakanthaswamy Temple Vs Maddu Ramamurthy

Sri Sri Sri Radhakanthaswamy Temple Vs Maddu Ramamurthy