Case Number: EP/3/2017
Parties: Meka Nageswara Rao versus Guttula Venkata Rao
Order Number: 1
Filing Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015
Order Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024
Order Description: Order
Status: EP
Stage: HEARING
Present: Sai Kumari Akuri, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amalapuram Monday, this the 5th day of August, 2024 E.P.No.3 of 2017 in O.S.No.175 of 2011
Between:
Meka Nageswara Rao, S/o Veerraju, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Sanapallilanka, Inavilli Mandal. . . . Petitioner/Decree Holder
And
This petition came on 02-08-2024 for hearing in the presence of S;ri A.V.S.Prasad and Sri G.B.Raviteja, Learned Counsels for Petitioner/Decree Holder and 1st Respondent/J.Dr is died and Sri E.S.Prasad, Learned Counsel for 2nd Respondent/J.Dr and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration to this day, this court made the following:
This is an Execution petition filed by the petitioner/decree holder against the respondent/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to direct the respondent to execute and register sale deed for the decree schedule property and in case of his
failure, depute the court Ameen to submit the sale deed for the registration in favour of D.hr.
The brief averments of the petitioner affidavit are as follows: The petitioner/decree holder filed the suit, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated, 07-06-2007 pertaining to the plaint schedule property. The Hon'ble court as per the decree and judgment dated, 10- 04-2014, decreed the suit against the 1st defendant directing him to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder pertaining to the plaint schedule property. As per the decree directed the petitioner to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.50,000/- within one month from the date of decree dated, 10-04-2014. After the decree, the petitioner deposited the said amount of balance consideration within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the petitioner demanded the defendant to comply the terms of the decree, but the respondent failed to comply the same, hence, the petitioner obliged to file this petition. Hence, prays to execute and register sale deed on behalf of the respondent/defendant by deputing Ameen for the registering the document through court at the expenses of petitioner and pass such other orders. Hence, this petition.
The 1st judgment-debtor reportedly died. On receipt of notice, the 2 nd judgment-debtor filed counter denying the material averments of the petition affidavit. In such counter, the 2nd Judgment-debtor further contended that the petition is not maintainable under law, as the petitioner is having sufficient knowledge that the plaint schedule property not belongs to the 1st J.Dr and that the J.Drs and another person V.Naga Prasanna are legal owners of the property and that the decree obtained behind back of the J.Dr is not valid and cannot executed under law. Though the D.hr is having knowledge regarding the same, filed the present petition with all false allegations and trying to create troubles to these J.Drs. The J.Drs 2 and 3 herewith bringing the
true facts that "one Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam, W/o Kondala Rao and Katta Naga Ratnam, W/o Surya Rao are sisters and permanent residents of Amalapuram and they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties. The said Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam is the grand mother of 2nd J.Dr. During the life time of Katta Naga Ratnam and her husband Surya Rao were not blessed with any child. They were in care and custody of her sister's family i.e., 2nd J.Dr's father by name Gutta Venkata Rao and his wife Bhaskaramma as their relatives. They brought up one female child Vasamsetty Naga Prasanna, who is the daughter of Vasamsetty Venkata Narayana and looked after her affairs.
It is further contended that during the life time of Katta Naga Ratnam and Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam, the father and month of 2nd J.Dr used to assist them with utmost care and protection. On 10-03- 1989, Katta Naga Ratnam executed a Will and bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in favur of 2nd J.Dr's father and mother Bhaskaramma for their life time and thereafter vested reminder rights to the 2nd J.Dr and his brother i.e., in the name of 2nd J.Dr and his brother by name Suresh Kumar and also Ac 0-10 cents of land to 3rd J.Dr by name Vasamsetty Naga Prasanna by appointing her natural father Vasamsetty Venkata Narayana as her guardian by reserving her right to alter or cancel the Will in her life time and register the same as Doc.No.38/1989 on the file of Amalapuram Registrar's Office and on the same day also executed a Will and bequeathed the plaint schedule properties and other properties in favour of 2nd J.Dr's father and mother Bhaskaramma for their life time and thereafter vested reminder rights to the 2nd J.Dr and his brother i.e., in the name of 2nd J.Dr and his brother by reserving her right to alter or cancel the Will in her life time and register the same as Doc.No.37/1989. Thereafter, on 06-04-1999, the said Katta Naga Ratnam and the Vasamsetty Venkata Ratanamma also died on 15-07-1998 without changing their last testament Wills dated, 10-03-1989 and also leaving behind the plaintiff's family as their sole legal heirs for the estate left by them. Immediately, after the death of Katta Naga Ratnam and Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma, the Wills dated, 10-03-1989 came into force and accordingly the entire plaint properties came into the possession of the plaintiff's family and 3rd J.Dr and since then, the plaintiff's father Venkata Rao managing the plaint schedule properties on behalf of 3rd J.Dr by giving the some of the properties to tenant i.e., D.hr herein and also collected the rents etc., from the tenant till 2011 as he is having limit rights of enjoyment of properties for his life time only and also paid lease amounts to the 2nd defendant's family. The 2nd J.Dr's mother Bhaskaramma also died in the year, 2006 leaving behind her sons as her sole legal heirs.
It is further contended that the D.Hr was a cultivating tenant in the plaint schedule properties and used to pay cists to the panchayat in the name of 2nd J.Dr's father from out of the lease amount and also paid 25 bags of paddy (76 Kgs each bag) towards lease amount to the J.Dr's father. In fact, since from the childhood, the 2nd J.Dr and his brother Suresh Kumar are used to reside at Pune, Maharatra and Manuguru, Khammam District for their livelihood and they are not having any knowledge of Telugu reading and writing but only they can speak in Telugu. In the year, 1994, the 3rd J.Dr's father Suresh Kumar died leaving behind his only son i.e., 3rd J.Dr herein as his sole legal heir for the estate left by him. While the matter stood thus, in the year, 2011, Vasamsetty Naga Prasanna informed to the plaintiffs that taking advantage of 2nd J.Dr's father's drinking habit, the D.Hr hatched a plan behind back of the J.Dr's father for their wrongful benefit and did not paying the lease amounts and asked the Jdrs to sign on the papers prepared for filing the suit agianst the D.hr herein. At that juncture, being
landlords and residing far from the plaint schedule proprieties, the 1st J.Dr made to sign on the papers for filing the suit against the D.Hr herein for his eviction and terminated the D.Hr's lease. Since then, the D.Hr became unauthorized occupant in the schedule properties. Thereafter the J.Drs were informed by the V.Naga Prasanna that the petition was numbered as ATC.No.3 of 2011 and the 2nd J.Dr also gave evidence in that matter. Thereafter the said ATC was dismiss as the father of the 2nd J.Dr was not added as necessary party in that petition. At that juncture also the J.Drs are residing at Pune and also not having any sort of knowledge regarding the dismissal of the petition and also filing of another suit O.S.No.175 of 2011 by the D.hr herein against the J.Drs and his father by alleging that the D.Hr purchased the plaint schedule properties from the father of the 2nd J.Dr under agreement of sale ect., false allegations and they did not received any summons or notices from the Hon'ble court. In fact, the said suit O.S.No.175 of 2011 was decreed exparte on 10-04-2014 and in the year, 2018, after filing of the execution petition and notices only the 2nd J.Dr's father came to know about the filing of the suit and obtaining of exparte decree by the D.Hr behind back of the J.Drs and his family members. Immediately the 2 nd J.Dr's father Venkata Rao filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree and also contesting the petition matter which is pending before this court and same is pending for disposal till his death. In fact, as per the both Wills dated, 10-03-1989 executed by said Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma and Katta Naga Ratnam, the 2nd J.Dr father Venkata Rao is having only limited rights of enjoyment of properties for his life time and exclusive ownership and vested reminder rights were given to the 2nd J.Dr and his brother Suresh Kumar's favour.
the decree passed in O.S.No.175 of 2011 for specific performance of agreement of sale in favour of the D.hr are null and void and cannot be enforceable under the law. Recently, on 11-06-2019,t he 2nd J.Dr's father Venkata Rao died and after his demise, as per the arrangements of the Wills dated, 10-03-1989, the J.Drs 2 and 3 became full owners of their respective plaint schedule properties. The said fact also intimated to the D.hr and the D.hr is also having knowledge regarding the execution of Wills dated, 10-03-1989 by Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam and Katta Naga Ratnam in favour of J.Drs 2 and 3 and also having bounder duty to pay the pending lease amounts from 2009-2010 to 2011 to the J.Drs 2 and 3 and also to vacate the plaint schedule properties immediately and handover the same to the J.Drs 2 and 3 and said V.Naga Venkata Ratnam, their last testaments Will dated, 10-03- 1989 were came into force and thereafter according to the arrangements made by Katta Naga Ratnam and Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam the J.Drs 2 and 3 became absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties with exclusive ownership rights, title and interest after the demise of Gutta Venkata Rao i.e., 2nd J.Dr mother Bhaskaramma and father. Accordingly, the J.Drs 2 and 3 are the sole legal owners of their respective plaint schedule proprieties and they alone are entitled for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties without any hindrance, obstacles or nay interference from anybody in any manner including the defendant herein in any manner what so ever after vacating the 1st defendant from the plant schedule properties.
about the D.Hrs illegal and unlawful acts of taking advantage of J.Drs 2 and 3 absentee land lordship and also the hike of land values. The D.Hr also hatched a plan to grab the valuable properties of J.Drs 2 and 3 and trying to obtain a registered sale deed behind back of them with a view to knock away the J.Drs valuable properties. But the D.Hr is not entitled for the same as the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the D.hr is not legally valid documents and moreover the alleged agreement of sale also not executed by the J.Drs 2 and 3 or his father. The alleged signatures on the alleged agreement of sale might be a forged and fabricated document which was created by the D.Hr for his wrongful gain and the decree in O.S.No.175 of 2011 also not legally valid and not binding on the J.Drs 2 and 3 herein. Since from the date of death of 1st J.Dr, the D.Hr used to threaten the J.Drs 2 and 3 that if the J.Drs 2 and 3 did not allow them to continue at the schedule property they will start fresh unlawful litigation against their properties and further threatened that they are also having possession of some original documents and blank stamped papers with 1st J.Dr's signature and they will fabricated the same at their whims and fancies and also they will create some nominal and collusive documents in favour of their kith and kin for the purpose of prolonging the litigation with a view to harass the J.Drs 2 and 3 in all possible ways which ultimately results severe mental agony and monitory loss to the J.Drs 2 and 3 and their families. The D.Hr also went to an extent by making a big galata for the plaint schedule property by using their henchmen. At that juncture, the J.Drs 2 and 3 requested the D.hr to refrain from making unlawful demands and explained them about the last testament of the Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma and Katta Naga Ratnam and asked him to refrain from create unlawful litigation against their properties. But the D.Hr did not heed the words of J.Drs 2 and 3 and continue their harassment against them.
Recently, the J.Drs 2 and 3 came to know that though there is no right, title, the D.hr is trying to create some false and frivolous documents as if those are executed bythe 1st J.Dr and also hatched a plan to mortgage or alienate J.Drs 2 and 3's property to others and also trying to create some nominal, collusive and false documents in the name of their kith and kin including third parties with a view to have wrongful gain and to cause loss to the J.Drs 2 and 3. Such false and fabricated documents cannot bind the J.Drs 2 and 3 and their properties and further the J.Drs 2 and 3 became absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties under the Will dated, 10-03-1989 executed by Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma and Katta Naga Ratnam. The J.Drs 2 and 3 submit that the D.Hr have no right whatsoever in and over th plaint schedule properties of the J.Drs 2 and 3.
There being no other go, the J.Drs 2 and 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.328 of 2021 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule properties by declaring the decree in O.S.No.171 of 2011 is not binding on the plaintiff therein and also for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties from the D.hr herein and consequently granting permanent injunction against the 1st defendant, his men, agents, servants, followers etc., therein from not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in manner what so ever and the same is pending for disposal. Since the said V.Naga Prasanna is also acquired properties under the Will dated, 10-03-1989 executed by Katta Naga Ratnam, she was shown as 2nd defendant therein and also proper and necessary party to the suit. The D.Hr is also having knowledge about the same and also contesting the said suit filed for declaration. In fact, the petitioner is having knowledge about filing of the suits for declaration and also
petitions in the matter for granting stay of all further proceedings and filed the present petition with all false allegations and also created a false story which was narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and before the court. Hence, there is no legal infirmity caused in this case and the present petition also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
During enquiry, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.
Heard both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions.
Now the point for consideration is:
specific performance of agreement of sale, dated, 07-06-2007 pertaining to the plaint schedule property. As per decree and judgment, dated, 10-04-2014, decreed the suit against the 1st defendant, but on perusal of the decree, dated 10-04-2014 against J.Drs 1 to 3. As per decree, directed him deposit of balance of sale consideration within one month from the date of decree, dated, 10-04-2014. After decree, his deposit amount balance of consideration within stipulated time. Subsequently, he demanded the defendant to comply the terns of the decree, but the respondent failed to comply the terms of the decree and the respondent failed to comply the same. He obliged to file the petition. As per affidavit, date of deposit is not noted in the petition.
Their counsel filed the written arguments as follows:-
having sufficient knowledge that the plaint schedule property not belongs to the 1st J.Dr and that the J.Drs and another person V.Naga Prasanna are legal owners of the property and that the decree obtained behind back of the J.Dr is not valid and cannot executed under law. Though the D.hr is having knowledge regarding the same, filed the present petition with all false allegations and trying to create troubles to these J.Drs. The J.Drs 2 and 3 herewith bringing the true facts that "one Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam, W/o Kondala Rao and Katta Naga Ratnam, W/o Surya Rao are sisters and permanent residents of Amalapuram and they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties. The said Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam is the grand mother of 2nd J.Dr. During the life time of Katta Naga Ratnam and her husband Surya Rao were not blessed with any child. They were in care and custody of her sister's family i.e., 2nd J.Dr's father by name Gutta Venkata Rao and his wife Bhaskaramma as their relatives. They brought up one female child Vasamsetty Naga Prasanna, who is the daughter of Vasamsetty Venkata Narayana and looked after her affairs. 16. It is further contended that during the life time of Katta Naga
Ratnam and Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnam, the father and month of 2nd J.Dr used to assist them with utmost care and protection. On 10-03- 1989, Katta Naga Ratnam executed a Will and bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in favur of 2nd J.Dr's father and mother Bhaskaramma for their life time and thereafter vested reminder rights to the 2nd J.Dr and his brother i.e., in the name of 2nd J.Dr and his brother by name Suresh Kumar and also Ac 0-10 cents of land to 3rd J.Dr by name Vasamsetty Naga Prasanna by appointing her natural father Vasamsetty Venkata Narayana as her guardian by reserving her right to alter or cancel the Will in her lief time and register the same as Doc.No.38/1989 on the file of Amalapuram Registrar's Office and on the same day also executed a Will and bequeathed the plaint schedule properties and other properties in favour of 2nd J.Dr's father and mother Bhaskaramma for their life time and thereafter vested reminder rights to the 2nd J.Dr and his brother i.e., in the name of 2nd J.Dr and his brother by reserving her right to alter or cancel the Will in her life time and register the same as Doc.No.37/1989. Thereafter, on 06-04-1999, the said Katta Naga Ratnam and the Vasamsetty Venkata Ratanamma also died on 15-07-1998 without changing their last testament Wills dated, 10-03-1989 and also leaving behind the plaintiff's family as their sole legal heirs for the estate left by them. Immediately, after the death of Katta Naga Ratnam and Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma, the Wills dated, 10-03-1989 came into force and accordingly the entire plaint properties came into the possession of the plaintiff's family and 3rd J.Dr and since then, the plaintiff's father Venkata Rao managing the plaint schedule properties on behalf of 3rd J.Dr by giving the some of the properties to tenant i.e., D.hr herein and also collected the rents etc., from the tenant till 2011 as he is having limit rights of enjoyment of properties for his life time only and also paid lease amounts to the 2nd defendant's family. The 2nd J.Dr's mother Bhaskaramma also died in the year, 2006 leaving behind her sons as her sole legal heirs.
leaving behind his only son i.e., 3rd J.Dr herein as his sole legal heir for the estate left by him. While the matter stood thus, in the year, 2011, Vasamsetty Naga Prasanna informed to the plaintiffs that taking advantage of 2nd J.Dr's father's drinking habit, the D.Hr hatched a plan behind back of the J.Dr's father for their wrongful benefit and did not paying the lease amounts and asked the Jdrs to sign on the papers prepared for filing the suit agianst the D.hr herein. At that juncture, being landlords and residing far from the plaint schedule proprieties, the 1st J.Dr made to sign on the papers for filing the suit against the D.Hr herein for his eviction and terminated the D.Hr's lease. Since then, the D.Hr became unauthorized occupant in the schedule properties. Thereafter the J.Drs were informed by the V.Naga Prasanna that the petition was numbered as ATC.No.3 of 2011 and the 2nd J.Dr also gave evidence in that matter. Thereafter the said ATC was dismiss as the father of the 2nd J.Dr was not added as necessary party in that petition. At that juncture also the J.Drs are residing at Pune and also not having any sort of knowledge regarding the dismissal of the petition and also filing of another suit O.S.No.175 of 2011 by the D.hr herein against the
J.Drs and his father by alleging that the D.Hr purchased the plaint schedule properties from the father of the 2nd J.Dr under agreement of sale ect., false allegations and they did not received any summons or notices from the Hon'ble court. In fact, the said suit O.S.No.175 of 2011 was decreed exparte on 10-04-2014 and in the year, 2018, after filing of the execution petition and notices only the 2nd J.Dr's father came to know about the filing of the suit and obtaining of exparte decree by the D.Hr behind back of the J.Drs and his family members. Immediately the 2 nd J.Dr's father Venkata Rao filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree and also contesting the petition matter which is pending before this court and same is pending for disposal till his death. In fact, as per
the both Wills dated, 10-03-1989 executed by said Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma and Katta Naga Ratnam, the 2nd J.Dr father Venkata Rao is having only limited rights of enjoyment of properties for his life time and exclusive ownership and vested reminder rights were given to the 2nd J.Dr and his brother Suresh Kumar's favour.
interference from anybody in any manner including the defendant herein in any manner what so ever after vacating the 1st defendant from the plant schedule properties.
to an extent by making a big galata for the plaint schedule properties by using their henchmen. At that juncture, the J.Drs 2 and 3 requested the D.hr to refrain from making unlawful demands and explained them about the last testament of the Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma and Katta Naga Ratnam and asked him to refrain from create unlawful litigation against their properties. But the D.Hr did not heed the words of J.Drs 2 and 3 and continue their harassment against them.
Recently, the J.Drs 2 and 3 came to know that though there is no right, title, the D.hr is trying to create some false and frivolous documents as if those are executed bythe 1st J.Dr and also hatched a plan to mortgage or alienate J.Drs 2 and 3's property to others and also trying to create some nominal, collusive and false documents in the name of their kith and kin including third parties with a view to have wrongful gain and to cause loss to the J.Drs 2 and 3. Such false and fabricated documents cannot bind the J.Drs 2 and 3 and their properties and further the J.Drs 2 and 3 became absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties under the Will dated, 10-03-1989 executed by Vasamsetty Venkata Ratnamma and Katta Naga Ratnam. The J.Drs 2 and 3 submit that the D.Hr have no right whatsoever in and over th plaint schedule properties of the J.Drs 2 and 3.
There being no other go, the J.Drs 2 and 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.328 of 2021 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule properties by declaring the decree in O.S.No.171 of 2011 is not binding on the plaintiff therein and also for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties from the D.hr herein and consequently granting permanent injunction against the 1st defendant, his men, agents, servants, followers etc., therein from not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule
property in manner what so ever and the same is pending for disposal. Since the said V.Naga Prasanna is also acquired properties under the Will dated, 10-03-1989 executed by Katta Naga Ratnam, she was shown as 2nd defendant therein and also proper and necessary party to the suit. The D.Hr is also having knowledge about the same and also contesting the said suit filed for declaration. In fact, the petitioner is having knowledge about filing of the suits for declaration and also petitions in the matter for granting stay of all further proceedings and filed the present petition with all false allegations and also created a false story which was narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and before the court. Hence, there is no legal infirmity caused in this case and the present petition also liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In fact, the D.hr did not adduce any sort of piece of evidence to show that the deceased 1st J.Dr is the legal owner of the plaint schedule property and simply file the suit basing on the alleged agreement of sale allegedly executed by the 1st J.Dr so such decree cannot executed and the execution proceedings against the real owners are liable to be dismissed.
that the suit was filed against the original owners of the property or not and if there is harm or injustice will cause to the original owners of the property against whom the decree is going to be executed. So in this present case the suit was filed basing o the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed by the defendant who is not having sort of right or title and the D.Hr also trying to execute the decree against true owners of the property under the guise of legal hairship with the decease 1" J.Dr. In fact the decree cannot be executed unless and un till the validity of the decree is proved and more over there is suit was also filed for declaration of title and cancellation of decree under execution. If the D.Hr permitted to proceeds with the present execution proceedings, the very purpose of filing of suit by these J.Drs 2 and 3 will be defeated and there is a chance of causing injustice to the J.Drs.
Hence, in view of the above circumstances, submissions and facts, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with costs in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
As per above discussion, the J.Dr 2 and 3 evading the execution of sale deed as per the counter. If there is any objections, they are not produced oral and documentary evidence for their contest before the trial court. Contents of counter are not tenable, in the execution petition only on draft sale deed for filing objections instead of filing objections, they filed the counter, accordingly, point is answered.
In the result, petition is allowed, without costs, E.P is disposed off, but not closed to proceed further, for filing of N.J Stamp and engrossing, call on 09-08-2024.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of August, 2024. Sd/- Sai Kumari, Akuri, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amalapuram
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil