Telangana High Court
CRP/5617/2011 of Smt. Killampalli Kasulamma, Vs Smt. Chellu Padma, on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 of 2011 Dated:29.12.2011 Between: Smt.Killampalli Kasulamma. …Petitioner and Smt.Chellu Padma. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 of 2011Dated:29.12.2011
Between:
Smt.Killampalli Kasulamma.
…Petitioner
and
Smt.Chellu Padma.
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOCIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5617 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:
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.26 of 2010in O.S.No.638 of 2005. By impugned order dated 12.09.2011passed in the said E.P the Court of the Principal Junior CivilJudge, Chodavaram, allowed the E.P and ordered sale of theattached property.
The respondent obtained the decree and filed the E.P underOrder XXI Rules 22, 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC), for attachment and sale of the petition scheduleproperty. The petitioner herein took the plea that she is notexclusive owner of the petition schedule property and that it beingthe ancestral property she got only 1/9[th] share. She alsosubmitted that she has no objection to sell the propertyadmeasuring Ac.0.36 cents in survey No.81/12.
During the enquiry, the decree holder did not adduce anyevidence. The judgment debtor deposed as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 and R2. Her son deposed as R.W.2. On considering theevidence the execution Court overruling the objections of thejudgment debtor, allowed the petition for sale.
The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that theimpugned order is vitiated by error and that ordering sale of entireproperty instead of 1/9[th] share of judgment debtor is unsustainablein law.
The Court below held that the judgment debtor is exclusiveowner of the property based on the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. The judgment debtor contended that she and her eight childrenhave share in the property, which remained unproved. Though shereferred to pattadar pass books and title deeds they were notproduced, and therefore, an adverse inference was drawn underSection 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The reasoning ofthe Court below is, therefore, sound, and the plea of the Counselcannot be accepted.
The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merits and thesame is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as tocosts.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)