Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1020 (AP)

Narla Venkata Siva Reddy v. Dereddy Nagireddy

2007-10-13

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2007
ORDER :-First respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioner and the second respondent for enforcing the agreement of sale dated 16.5.1990, alleging that the first respondent after executing the agreement of sale in his favour fraudulently transferred some land to the second respondent. The trial Court, after contest, decreed the suit against the revision petitioner and dismissed the suit against the second t respondent and directed the first respondent to pay the balance sale consideration with interest on the day fixed and gave a direction to the revision petitioner to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the first respondent. First respondent, after depositing the amount due and payable by him, filed the E.P. for execution of the decree in his favour directing the revision petitioner to execute and register the regular sale deed in his, favour. Revision petitioner filed his counter contending that the E.P. filed by impleading the second respondent also as a party to it, though the suit is dismissed against him, is not maintainable and that the first respondent has deliberately shown the extent of item No.1 as 7 cents instead of 5 1/2 cents and the eastern boundary should be shown as land belonging to the second respondent and that the first respondent is mischievously claiming the entire extent of land including the land sold by him to the second respondent. The executing Court by the order under revision overruled the objections of the revision petitioner and posted the E.P. for further steps. Questioning the same, the J.Dr filed this revision. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the suit against the second respondent was dismissed, first respondent ought not to have shown the second respondent as J .Dr in the E.P. It is also his contention that inasmuch as the trial Court gave a clear finding that the sale in favour of the second respondent is not invalid as the boundaries mentioned in the agreement clearly show that the revision petitioner retained certain land for himself, and since the total extent of land is only 7 cents, first respondent is not entitled to get a sale deed for the entire area claimed by him. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent, is that though the name of the second respondent is shown in the E.P., as no relief is claimed against him he did not feel aggrieved, and as to how the revision petitioner is prejudiced by the second respondent being shown as one of the J.Drs in the E.P. is not explained, revision petitioner cannot claim for dismissal of the E.P. on that ground. It is his contention that inasmuch as the decree is being executed as it is, and since the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, the contention that the first respondent has to seek an amendment of the decree is unsustainable and so there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. 3. Since no relief is claimed in the E.P. against the second respondent, the mere fact of the first respondent showing the name of the second respondent in the E.P. as a party therein would not clothe the revision petitioner to contend that E.P. should be dismissed on that ground, because he is not prejudiced by the name of the second respondent appearing in the E.P. If at all it is the second respondent that should have felt aggrieved by the first respondent showing his name in the E.P. and claim for its being struck of. 4. The boundaries of the property in respect of which first respondent wants to obtain a sale deed is Property situate in Kurnool District, Nandyal Sub-District, Nandyal Taluk, Parnapalli Village. ITEM - 1 East Leftover land of the revision petitioner in the same land. West First respondent's land. North Swamy's land and second respondent's open space. South Exclusive rastha Narayanareddy situate in between this plot and II item and Kallarns of plaintiff and his brother situated to the west. Measurements: East - West: 126 links. North - South: 57 links. ITEM - II East Land retained by 1st defendant Narla Venkata Siva Reddy West Dareddy Narayanareddy's kallam North Exclusive rastha of plaintiff Dareddy Nagireddy and his brother Narayanareddy situate in between this plot and 2nd item and kallams of plaintiff and his brother situated to the west. South Narla Venkata Subba Reddy kallam. Measurements East - West: 126 links North - South: 57 links. the boundaries in the decree schedule are Property situate in Kurnool District, Nandyal Sub-District, Nandyal Taluk, Parnapalli Village. South Narla Venkata Subba Reddy kallam. Measurements East - West: 126 links North - South: 57 links. the boundaries in the decree schedule are Property situate in Kurnool District, Nandyal Sub-District, Nandyal Taluk, Parnapalli Village. ITEM - I S.No.197/IE, Pyki 7 cents kallam East Leftover land cents 0.182 of 1st defendant in the same land West Plaintiff's kallam North Swamy Reddy, 2nd defendant's open space South Exclusive rastha of the plaintiff and his brother Narayana Reddy situated in between the plaint schedule lands and their kallams, situated to the west of the plaint schedule lands. Measurements: East - West: 126 links. North - South: 57 links. ITEM - II S.No.198/3, Pyki. 7 cents kallam East Land retained by 1st defendant West Dareddy Narayanareddy's kallam North Exclusive rastha of the plaintiff and his brother Narayana Reddy situated in between the plant schedule lands and their kallams to the west of the plaint schedule lands. South Narla Venkata Subba Reddy kallam Measurements: East - West: 126 links. North - South: 57 links. So it is clear that the E.P. schedule tallies with the decree schedule. 5. If the land sold away by the revision petitioner is being claimed by the first respondent in the E.P., it is for the second respondent to take steps, but the revision petitioner, who is the J.Dr cannot resist the execution of the decree on that ground that too when the first respondent is executing the decree strictly in accordance with the decree as it is drafted. 6. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to admit this revision and hence the revision is dismissed with costs.