JUDGMENT : A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. Challenge in this appeal suit is to the order, dated 09.11.2018 in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (Additional District Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dealing with a claim under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the said E.A.No.1 of 2018. Felt aggrieved of the order, the unsuccessful claimants in E.A.No.1 of 2018 as above, filed the present appeal suit. 2. The parties to this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional District Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimants, in brief, before the learned Additional District Judge in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.No.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, is that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule property. They are in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase, dated 10.07.2007 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3427/2007 from Mylavarapu Satyavathi (third respondent in E.A.No.1 of 2018). Originally there was an old building. After purchase the petitioners obtained necessary approvals from Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation demolished the old building and constructed new building as per the approved plan. Petitioners are paying municipal tax and electricity consumption charges to the concerned. They came to know that the first respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit, O.S.No.326 of 2004 against the second respondent and third respondent and obtained a decree. They also came to know that the first respondent/plaintiff got attached the petition schedule property on 29.08.2016 which was made absolute. The second respondent and third respondent have no right after sale of the petition schedule property to the petitioners. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 might have colluded and obtained a decree. The vendor of the petitioners i.e., third respondent got the suit schedule property under a registered gift deed, dated 19.12.2002 executed by the second respondent in her favour. Petitioners obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar office, Visakhapatnam for 35 years prior to the purchase. They paid a sale consideration of Rs.15,39,000/- to their vendor. They availed loan from Shriram City Union Finance Limited by mortgaging the petition schedule property on 30.04.2012 under mortgage deed. Petitioners obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar office, Visakhapatnam for 35 years prior to the purchase. They paid a sale consideration of Rs.15,39,000/- to their vendor. They availed loan from Shriram City Union Finance Limited by mortgaging the petition schedule property on 30.04.2012 under mortgage deed. Later the loan was taken over by Visakhapatnam Co-operative Bank under a document No.1680/2016, dated 09.03.2016, which was mentioned in encumbrance certificate. 4. The petitioners came to know that the first respondent/ plaintiff filed suit, O.S.No.326 of 2004 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 04.11.1998 and it was decreed partly for return of the advance amount. As against the said decree, the first respondent preferred an appeal, A.S.No.826 of 2008 before the High Court and the High Court allowed the appeal partly by granting interest at 15% per annum. Later, the first respondent filed E.P.No.9 of 2015 against the second respondent and third respondent. Though the petition schedule property was purchased by the petitioners on 10.07.2007, the decree obtained by the first respondent on 10.09.2008 against second respondent and third respondent is subsequent to the purchase of the petition schedule property by the petitioners. So also, the attachment was made on 29.08.2016. On coming to know the facts, the petitioners filed a petition to raise the attachment. Hence, the petition. 5. The first respondent got filed a counter contending in substance that the allegations that first respondent colluded with second respondent and third respondent and obtained a decree is not correct. During the pendency of the suit filed by the first respondent against second respondent and third respondent, the second respondent alienated the property in favour of third respondent and the said transaction was hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim any equity or legal right. The application is filed to defraud the legitimate right of the decree holder. Petition is not maintainable as there is no attachment which is a pre-condition to file the application. The High Court in the appeal filed by the first respondent against the judgment in O.S.No.326 of 2004 created a charge over the property, as such, petitioners shall have no grievance to file the application. Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 2 did not participate at any time during the pendency of the petition and that they were made exparte. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed. 6. Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 2 did not participate at any time during the pendency of the petition and that they were made exparte. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed. 6. During the course of enquiry on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. No evidence was let in on behalf of the contesting respondents. 7. The learned Additional District Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence dismissed the petition. The unsuccessful claimants aggrieved of the aforesaid order, filed the present appeal suit. 8. Now, in deciding the present appeal suit, the point for determination is whether the order, dated 09.11.2018 in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.326 of 2004, on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT:- 9. Sri M. Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellants through video conference, would canvass a contention that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the schedule property having purchased from its lawful owner i.e., third respondent by virtue of Ex.A.1 sale deed, dated 10.07.2007. In fact, third respondent got the property from the second respondent by virtue of a registered gift deed, dated 19.12.2002 under Ex.A.2. The first respondent filed a collusive suit and obtained a decree against the second respondent and third respondent. Granting of decree, dated 10.09.2008 in O.S.No.326 of 2004 was subsequent to the sale deed. Though the first respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of schedule property, but first respondent could only succeed in getting a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. Though first respondent filed appeal against the judgment in O.S.No.326 of 2004 before the High Court, it was dismissed. He would strenuously contend that the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh was on 03.12.2012 and much prior to the same, the petitioners purchased the property from third respondent. The attachment in E.P. is not binding on the claimants. With the above submissions, he would contend that the learned Additional District Judge erroneously dismissed the claim application, as such, order is liable to be set aside by allowing E.A.No.1 of 2018 so as to raise the attachment in E.P.No.9 of 2015. 10. The attachment in E.P. is not binding on the claimants. With the above submissions, he would contend that the learned Additional District Judge erroneously dismissed the claim application, as such, order is liable to be set aside by allowing E.A.No.1 of 2018 so as to raise the attachment in E.P.No.9 of 2015. 10. Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent, would canvass the contention that the first respondent instituted the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 04.11.1998 and it could be decreed partly by directing the second respondent and third respondent to refund the advance amount. Though the first respondent challenged the same by way of appeal before the High Court, appeal was dismissed but awarding interest at 15% per annum. The High Court categorically observed and created a charge over the schedule property. So, on the strength of the charge created, the first respondent filed execution petition before the learned Additional District Judge and got attached the property. There were findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in O.S.No.326 of 2004 that the very gifted of the property by the second respondent in favour of third respondent is collusive one hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Those findings were confirmed by the High Court and further a charge was created. Under the circumstances, absolutely, the claimants are not entitled to have attachment raised, as such, the learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the E.A. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits. 11. Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, learned counsel, representing Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the contesting fourth respondent i.e., auction purchaser, who was impleaded as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022, would canvass a contention that the executing Court rightly dismissed the same, as such, appeal is devoid of merits which is liable to be dismissed. 12. P.W.1 before the learned Additional District Judge is no other than the first claimant who adverted to the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through his examination Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. Ex.A.1 was registered extract of registered sale deed, dated 10.07.2007. Ex.A.2 was registered extract of registered gift settlement deed, dated 19.12.2002. Ex.A.3 was original encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.4 was original encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, Visakhapatnam, dated 22.12.2017. Ex.A.5 was attested true copy of property tax passbook issued by GVMC, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.1 was registered extract of registered sale deed, dated 10.07.2007. Ex.A.2 was registered extract of registered gift settlement deed, dated 19.12.2002. Ex.A.3 was original encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.4 was original encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, Visakhapatnam, dated 22.12.2017. Ex.A.5 was attested true copy of property tax passbook issued by GVMC, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.6 was original bunch of electricity bills (9 in number) in favour of the petitioners. 13. There was no evidence let in on behalf of the contesting respondents. 14. There is no dispute about the execution of Ex.A.1 registered sale deed in favour of the claimants by the third respondent-Mylavarapu Satyavathi. There was also no dispute that third respondent-Mylavarapu Satyavathi in E.A.No.1 of 2018 got the property by virtue of Ex.A.2 registered gift settlement deed executed by Raviprolu Jaya Lakshmi i.e., second respondent. There is no dispute about the suit instituted by the first respondent to enforce the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, dated 04.11.1998 against second respondent and third respondent. The finding of facts recorded by the learned Additional District Judge is that the gift deed executed by Raviprolu Jaya Lakshmi in favour of Mylavarapu Satyavathi is a collusive one. As against the said findings of the learned Additional District Judge, Raviprolu Jaya Lakshmi and Mylavarapu Satyavathi did not file any appeal before appropriate appellate Court. On the other hand, it is Avala Vijaya Lakshmi, who filed the appeal, A.S.No.826 of 2008 when her prayer to grant the decree of specific performance of agreement of sale was not granted and there is no dispute that the said appeal was dismissed by granting interest at 15% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. The appeal was partly allowed and further there was no dispute that there was a charge created over the schedule property. It was pursuant to the directions in A.S.No.826 of 2008 granting the charge over the schedule property, the first respondent got attached the property by filing execution petition. So, the fact remained is that the petitioners claimed to have purchased the property under Ex.A.1 from the third respondent and the so-called gift deed said to be executed in her favour was held to be a collusive one inviting doctrine of lis pendens and further the first respondent was armed with judgment of High Court creating a charge over the schedule property. When that be the situation, the contention of the appellants that the attachment that was effected in E.P.No.9 of 2015 is liable to be raised deserves no merits. The judgment of the High Court in A.S.No.826 of 2008 creating charge over the schedule property becomes final. 15. Under the circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the E.P.No.9 of 2015. Hence, appeal is devoid of merits, as such, it is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.