C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SECOND respondent obtained a decree in O. S. No. 146 of 1981 against the third respondent and another and brought the property belonging to third respondent to sale in execution of the said decree. First respondent figured as a highest bidder. Appellant filed E. A. No. 345 of 1990 objecting to the delivery of property purchased by the first respondent in the Court auction claiming tenancy rights over the said property. The Executing Court holding that in as much as tenancy alleged is subsequent to the filing of the suit the same is hit by Rule 102 of Order 21, CPC and dismissed the E. A. On appeal, the District Judge, Warangal, confirmed the order of the Executing Court. Hence this Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the failure of the Courts below to take into consideration the fact that the appellant filed A. T. C. No. 42 of 1990 seeking a declaration of his tenancy and injunction against the third respondent from interfering with his possession resulted in grave injustice to the appellant. It is his contention that since the injunction granted by the Tenancy Court is subsisting first respondent, who also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document