Telangana High Court
SA/1043/2011 of B. Venkateswara Rao Vs Smt.Daggula Padmavathi on 30 December 2011
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1043 of 2011 Between: b. Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner And Smt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
SECOND APPEAL No.1043 of 2011
Between:
b. Venkateswara Rao
… Petitioner
AndSmt. Daggula Padmavathi and another.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Nutalapati Krishna MurthyCounsel for the respondents: None This Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
SECOND APPEAL No.1043 of 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated14.06.2011, in A.S.No.114 of 2009 on the file of the learned IIIAdditional District Judge, (FTC), Khammam, whereby she hasconfirmed the judgment and decree, dated 24.08.2009, in E.A.No.298of 2009 in E.P.No.292 of 2009 in O.S.No.512 of 2007 on the file of thelearned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.
The appellant is a third party to the suit filed by respondent No.1against respondent No.2 for recovery of certain amounts. The suit filedby respondent No.1 was decreed against respondent No.2. The saiddecree has become final and for execution of the said decree,respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.292 of 2009 for attachment and sale ofthe movables available in house No.3-1-65/2 of Indiranagar Colony,Khammam. The appellant, who is the son of respondent No.2 –judgment debtor, filed E.A.No.298 of 2009 claiming that the movables,which were attached, belong to him and that the judgment debtor hasno occasion whatsoever in respect thereof. Both the Courts belowhave concurrently found that the appellant and his sister colluded withrespondent No.2, judgment debtor, and have brought Exs.A2 to A4and A7 into existence with a view to defeat the claim of respondentNo.1. A perusal of both these judgments would show that severalcircumstances have been relied upon to arrive at the conclusionrelating to collusion.
It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was the original owner ofthe property and during the pendency of the suit filed by respondent No.1, he has executed Ex.A7 – gift deed purporting to transfer theproperty in favour of his daughter. The findings rendered by both theCourts below fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence. In myopinion, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 will not re-appreciate the evidence. Asboth the Courts below have not committed any error of law, nosubstantial question of law arises for consideration in the secondappeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. The sum ofRs.20,000/- stated to have been deposited by the appellant inpursuance of the interim direction granted by this Court shall bereturned to him on sale of the movable properties.
As a sequel, SAMP.No.2389 of 2011 is also dismissed.
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J