L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE decree holder in o. S. No. 928 of 1992 on the file of the ii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, has filed this C. M. A. , aggrieved by an order passed by the executing Court, accepting the claim submitted by the 1st respondent under Rule 99 of Order 21 c. P. C.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed O. S. No. 928 of 1992 for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 11-5-1990, in relation to an extent of 310 sq. yards in premises bearing No. lo-5-2/l/l/a, of Masab tank, Hyderabad. The suit was decreed ex parte on 5-7-1993. He filed E. P. No. 40 of 1993 for execution of the decree. Since the 2nd respondent did not comply with the decree, the Court itself executed the sale deed on 25-7-1995. The appellant was inducted into possession only on 2-2-1999.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent filed E. A. No. 8 of 1999 under Rule 99 of Order 21 C. P. C. , alleging that the appellant dispossessed her from the property in premises No. 10-5-2/1/ 36/2, under the guise of the decree. She pleaded that she purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 17-1-1966, and ever since then, she has been in continuous possession of the land. It was also her case that she constructed the compound wall, and when the same was sought to be demolished, she filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained necessary orders. According to her, there is no comparison between the property, in respect of which the sale deed was executed and the one that was delivered to the appellant. The appellant resisted the E. A. On behalf of the 1st respondent, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-22 were marked. The Trial Court appointed advocate Commissioner to identify the property. The report and sketch submitted by him were marked as Exs. C-1 and C-2. The appellant has not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Through the order under appeal, the executing Court accepted the claim of the 1st respondent, and directed the bailiff of the Court to put her into possession of the property.

( 4 ) SRI Shiv Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was put in possession of the property, which is clearly covered by the agreement of sale and sale deed, and that there was no basis for the claim of the 1st respondent. He contends that the 1st respondent was not in possession of the property, when the possession of the same was delivered to the appellant, and in that view of the matter, the application filed by her was not maintainable in law. Pointing out to the alleged discrepancies in the evidence adduced on behalf of the 1st respondent, learned Counsel submits that the executing court was not justified in allowing the application.

( 5 ) SRI K. Mahipati Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that his client placed voluminous oral and documentary evidence before the executing Court, in support of her claim, and except contradicting the evidence of the 1st respondent, the appellant has not chosen to adduce evidence of any kind whatever. Learned Counsel submits that the suit itself was filed in collusion with the 2nd respondent, to grab the property of the appellant. He has invited the attention of this Court, to some suits filed by the appellant and his vendor, to support his contention, as to the lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant and his vendor, the 2nd respondent, and collusion between them.

( 6 ) THE suit filed by the appellant for the relief of specific performance, in relation to the suit schedule property, was decreed ex parte against the 2nd respondent. The decree became final and the appellant initiated execution. A sale deed was ultimately executed by the Court on 25-9-1995. He was put in possession of the property on 2-2-1999. Immediately the 1st respondent filed an application under Rule 99 of Order 21 C. P. C. , alleging that the possession of her property in different premises was delivered to the appellant under the guise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document