Civil Revision Petition No. 4607 of 2011 · High Court

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 19.08.2010 passed in E.A.No.332 of 2008 in E.A.No.166 of 2007 in E.P.No.9 of 2003 in O.S.No.51 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali (EA), wherein and whereby that application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 r/w Sections 101 and 151 CPC praying the Court to determine the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the E.P. schedule property in an extent of Ac.0.51 cents and to set aside the sale of the property dated 21.2.2006 and dismiss the E.A No.166 of 2007 filed by the auction purchaser for the delivery of the possession of the property and for costs, was allowed.

Heard.

For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the court below.

Infact the schedule of the property was given as follows:

S r i Potti Sriramulu Nellore Registration District, Kavali Sub- Registration Area, Kavali Town, Kavali Bit-2 Village, Patta No.920, Survey No.1233 of an extent of Ac.0.51 cents of land bounded by: East: Channel South: Land of Pittu Penchalaiah West: Land of Kakumani Musalaiah North: Land of Katti Venkataiah and others.

After adducing evidence, and on the basis of that evidence, the Court below held that both the properties were different and the respondent was found in possession of the property and hence the E.P was not tenable whereas consequently the Court below dismissed the E.P. The observations made by the Court below are not correct because both the properties are within the same boundaries. According to the claim petitioner, he purchased the property from a rightful owner D. Jayamma under a registered sale deed dated 26.7.2000 whereas according to the Decree Holder, the property is the ancestral property of the respondents 3 and 4 i.e., the JDr Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, these questions are to be examined by the court below and decide as to whether the respondents/Auction purchaser got the property from a rightful owner to sustain the claim petition. Infact, these aspects were not considered by the Court below comprehensively. Hence the impugned order passed by the Court below is not tenable and liable to be set aside.