Disposed

Thada Anja Reddy, v. Navarathna Reddy

Telangana HC6 Mar 2025AS/579/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claim petitioner's appeal against dismissal of his claim of joint ownership over mortgage property was disposed of after he agreed to clear the entire decretal dues, having already deposited half; executing court to close execution petition upon satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; appellant to pay entire decretal dues within six weeks before the Executing Court; no costs.

Thada Anja Reddy, Vs Navarathna Reddy — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

13217 |

I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶8

APPEAL S UIT NO: 579 OF²⁰⁰⁷

¶9

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C^{against the .l{dgrygnt-a1d.Pe-clge} -D^a^tgd 1 0 09.2007 made in E.A.No.86 of 2007^{in E.P.No.36 of 2005 in O S.No.117 of 2002} on the file of the Court of the^{SeniorCivil Judge,Karimnagar.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Thada Anja Reddy, S/o.Ra1i Reddy,^{Occ. Private Employee'R/o.H.No8-6-186,} Rampur L6cality,^{(arimnagdrTown, presently residing at Hyderabad.}

¶12

..Appella nUC laim Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Navarathna Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy,^{Occ: Landlord, R/o.2-10-983/1} ' Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

¶15

2 T.Raji Reddy, S/o,Bal Reddy, Occ:^{Business, R/o.H.No.8-6-119, Rampur} Locality, Karimnagar.

¶16

...Respondents/ResPondents

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(ASMP. NO: 360 OF²⁰⁰⁸⁾

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

Navarathna Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy,^{Occ: Landlord,R/o.2-10-983/1,Jyothinagar,} Karimnagar.

¶20

... Petitioner/ResPondent^No.1

¶21

AND

¶22

'1 . Thada Anjha Reddy, S/o.Ra.ii Reddy, Occ: Private Employee,^{R/o. H. No} 8-6-1 86, Rampur^LocalitY, Karimriagar Town.^{presently residingat} Hyderabad.

¶23

2 T.Raji Reddy, S/o.Bal Reddy, Occ:^{Business,R/o.H. No-B-6-1 19, Rampur} Locality, Karimnagar.

¶24

...Respondents/Respondents^No.2

¶25

Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate ASMP.No.2274 of 2007 in A.S.No.579 of 2007

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl V RAVI KIRAN RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI ( NONE APPEARED)

¶28

The Court delivered the following: Judgment

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶30

APPEAL SUIT NO.579 of 2007

¶31

JUDGMENT:

¶32

Heard Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent

¶33

This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 10.09.2007 in E.A.No.86 of 2004 in E.P.No.36 of 2005 in O.S.No.1 17 of 2O02 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

¶34

The appellant is the claim petitioner before the executing Court.

¶35

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No.1 filed suit O.S.No.117 of 2OO2 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for recovery of Rs.6,58,350/- basing on mortgage. The suit was preliminarily decreed on 22.03.2004 and the final decree was passed on 04.08.2005. Whereafter the execution petition vide E.P.No.36 of 2005 was filed for sale of mortgage property i.e. house at Rampur locality, Karimnagar. During the pendency the appellant herein filed the claim petition with a plea that he is the^joint owner of the schedule property. The Court

¶36

IITR,J 45,579-2007

¶37

¶38

below on merits dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been filed.

¶39

ln appeal, vide ASMP No.2274 of 2007 interim stay of all further proceedings in execution petition was granted subject to deposit of half of the decretal amount and as per the learned Senior counsel for the appellant the direction has been complied. However the respondenVdecree-holder disputed the quantification of half of the decretal amount.

¶40

Be that as it may, today at hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to make good the entire decretal dues to the respondent No.1.

¶41

Having regard to the submission, against the claim of the respondent No.1/decree-holder to realize the dues in the decree, as the appellanUclaim petitioner is readily accepting the liability and even paid half of the decretal amount due in the interlocutory proceedings, granting leave to clear of the decretal dues within six weeks is found appropriate. Accordingly ordered.

¶42

Upon such payment, subject to satisfaction, the executing Court may pass appropriate order closing the execution petition.

¶43

¶44

NTR,J AS_579_2007

¶45

For this reason, considering the merits in the appeal would not

¶46

anse

¶47

With the above observation, this appeal suit is disposed of. The appellant is directed to clear entire decretal due, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, before the Executing Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands

¶49

closed.

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

Sd/- I. NAGA^LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR /t SECTION OFFICER^l_

¶52

To,

¶53

1 The Senior Civil Judge,^{Karimnaga(Withrecords, if any)} 2 One CC to SRI^{V RAVI KIRAN RAO, Advocate IOPUC]} 3 One CC to SRI SRINIVASA^{RAO PUTLURI,Advocate [OPUC]} 4 Two CD Copies

Al)K/ghw

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610312025

JUDGMENT+ DECREE

SIArE O A
1€
/os
()
\uN >
I\ ,J \t s *
t u pri
2 DRAFTS

¶59

AS.No.579 ot 2007

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

Grel
P,

¶62

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶63

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶66

APPEAL SUIT NO: 579 OF 2007

¶67

Between:

¶68

Thada Anja Reddy, S/o.Raji Reddy, Occ:^{Private Employee,R/o.H. No.8-6-186,} Rampur Locality, Karimnagar Town,^{presently residingat Hyderabad.}

¶69

..APPellanUCIaim Petitioner

¶70

AND

¶71

Navarathna Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy, Occ:^{Landlord, R/o.2-10-983/1,} Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

¶72

T.Raji Reddy, S/o.Bal Reddy, Occ:^{Business, R/o.H.No.B-6-1 19, Rampur} Locality, Karimnagar.

¶73

Respondents/Respondents

¶74

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the^{Judgment and Decree Da-ted} 10.09.2007 made in E.A.No.86 of 2007 in E.P.No,36^{of 2005 in O.S.No.1'17o'f 2002} on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge,^Karimnagar.

¶75

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusing the grounds of appeal.} the Judgment and Decree of the^{Lower Courtand the material papers in the Case} and upon hearing the arguments^{of SRI V RAVIKIRAN RAO, Advocatefor the} Appellant and of SRI SRINIVASA^{RAO PUTLURI,Advocatefor the Respondent} No..1⁽ None appeared).

¶76

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶77

That the Appeal suit be and hereby^is disposed^of;

¶78

That the appellant is directed to clear entire^{decretal dues,within six weeks} from the date of receipt of a copy of this^{judgment, before the Executing} Cou rt;

¶79

That there shall be no order^as to costs^{in this appeal.}

¶80

Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI OINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

¶85

Two CD Copies

Yt-

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610312025

DECREE

AS.No.579 ol'2007

DISPOSING CF THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

¶93

\lcd'a P"*

Thada Anja Reddy, v. Navarathna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thada Anja Reddy, v. Navarathna Reddy

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

Jameel Ali Vs Miryal Gandhi

V. Dasarathy and Another Vs Sai Samrat Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Mohd Sadiq Vs Smt.K. Annapurna

Aslam Bin Ismail Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Ghanshyamdas Karwa, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Omar Farooq Vs The State of Telangana