( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtors in E. P. No. 28 of 2001 in o. S. No. 27 of 1997 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the plaintiff decree holder. He filed O. S. No. 27 of 1997 for recovery of mortgage money of Rs. 60,775/- against the Judgment Debtors in respect of the suit schedule property and a preliminary decree was passed on 30-04-1999. The Decree Holder filed I. A. No. 25 of 2000 for passing the final decree and the final decree was passed on 30-07-2000. The Decree Holder filed E. P. No. 28 of 2001 under Order 21 Rules 64 and 66 of C. P. C. against the judgment Debtors basing on the final decree for realization of Rs. 73,626/- by sale of E. P. schedule property, which is a dwelling house. The test of E. P. schedule property was ordered on 06-08-2001 issuing simultaneous notice to the judgment Debtors. The Court Amin executed the test warrant on 02-10-2001 and submitted a report on 03-10-2001 mentioning that the village elders valued the property at Rs. 30,000/ -. The notice on Judgment Debtor No. 1 was served and he was called absent and set ex parte. Judgment Debtor Nos. 2 and 3 were not served and their notice was ordered by way of publication and on filing of the publication, they were called absent and they were also set ex parte. Subsequently, the Decree Holder filed the sale papers and they were found to be correct. On 25-07-20002, sale notice was issued to the Judgment Debtors under order 21 Rule 66 of C. P. C.

( 3 ) THE Judgment Debtors engaged an Advocate and filed a common counter pleading that the E. P. schedule property was assigned by the Government and the alienation of the same is prohibited under law, therefore, they have salable interest in the property.

( 4 ) THE evidence on both sides was recorded. The Judgment Debtors contended that the E. P. schedule property was assigned by the Government, therefore, the said property cannot be sold. RW-2 Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Gorantla mandal, deposed that as per condition No. 9 of the Patta granted in favour of judgment Debtor No. 1 i. e. , the beneficiary is not entitled to sell the house for ten years without permission of the Government. The patta was granted in the year 1976, therefore, the Execution Court accepted the contention of the Decree holder that Judgment Debtor No. 1 became the absolute owner of the E. P. schedule property and accordingly, passed an order holding that the Judgment Debtors are having salable interest in the property. The E. P. was posted to 12-04-2004 for settlement of terms and sale was fixed on 21-06-2004. The Court conducted the auction on 21-06-2004 after following the procedure and the E. P. schedule property was sold for Rs. 32,900/- in favour of one K. Gangulappa S/o Pedda rangappa of Gorantla, who was the highest bidder among three participants. The e. P. Court proceedings disclose that the Judgment Debtors have neither furnished the value of the E. P. schedule property nor raised any objection for the value given by the Decree Holder or the value fixed by the Bailiff at Rs. 30,000/ -. As the price offered by the auction purchaser is more than the price fixed by the Amin, the bid was knocked down in favour of the highest bidder after satisfying that the property was auctioned for a reasonable price. The test report submitted by the Amin discloses that the E. P. property was identified within the boundaries on ground and there is no ambiguity or confusion with regard to the E. P. schedule property. The auction purchaser deposited 1/4 of the sale price on the date of auction i. e. , 21-06-2004 and he paid the remaining amount on 02-07-2004, therefore, the sale was confirmed on 06-07-2004 and the sale certificate was delivered on 06-08-2004.

( 5 ) THE Judgment Debtors filed E. A (sr ). No. 51495 of 2004 with a prayer to dismiss the E. P. on the ground that the Decree Holder filed the Application by enclosing an affidavit instead of filing a veri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document