( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19-4-2007 in EA. No. 10/2007 in EP. No. 40/2006 in O. S. No. 16/1974 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon as confirmed on Appeal by order dated 14-8-2007 in CMA. No. 28 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III-Additional district Judge, Warangal.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent, T. Rajaiah, during his lifetime filed O. S. No. 16 of 1974 in the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge, Warangal, seeking eviction of the 3rd respondent B. Nuruddin and for recovery of possession of 6 acres of land out of 12. 23 acres in Sy. No. 540 of Cheriyal Village, Warangal District. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court by Judgment dated 27-2-1987. Challenging the same, he filed AS. No. 76 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional district Judge, Warangal, which was also dismissed by Judgment dated 20-8-1992. In the meanwhile, the sole plaintiff Rajaiah died and the 2nd respondent herein was brought on record as the legal representative. He filed Second Appeal no. 249 of 1994 in this Court. The said Second Appeal was allowed by Judgment dated 19-7-2006 thereby decreeing the suit as prayed for. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the sole defendant B. Nuruddin also died and the respondents 4 and 5 herein, being the legal representatives were brought on record. In pursuance of the Judgment of this Court in S. A. No. 249 of 1994, the 2nd respondent herein filed E. P. No. 40 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the senior Civil Judge, Jangaon for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property.

( 3 ) IN the said Execution Petition, the Revision petitioner who is a 3rd party to the suit proceedings, filed EA. No. 10/2007 under Order 21 Rule 58 of c. P. C. claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the E. P. Schedule property. It is claimed that his father purchased the E. P. schedule property from Mohd. Nuruddin (sole defendant in O. S. No. 16/1974) under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 27-3-1981. His father died on 3-3-2005 and by virtue of a Registered Will executed by him, the petitioner got Ac. 6-11 guntas of land i. e. , the EP schedule property covered by Sy. No. 540. It is stated that his name was mutated in the revenue records and pattadar pass book was also issued in his favour. It is contended that the decree in O. S. No. 16 of 1974 obtained by the 2nd respondent herein was not binding on him since he was not a party to the said proceedings. It is also alleged that in O. S. No. 16 of 1974 no boundaries were shown to the suit schedule property and in the execution Petition the boundaries of the petitioner's property were shown for the first time by inventing the same. Contending that the same is nothing but abuse of process of law, it has been prayed in E. A. No. 10/2007 that the schedule property, which is in his possession cannot be delivered to the decree-holder.

( 4 ) A counter was filed by the decree-holder pleading that the sale transactions which took place between the father of the claim petitioner and the deceased defendant, being transactions pendente lite, the claim petitioner was bound by the decree and he cannot claim any independent right to the E. P. Schedule property. It is also pleaded that there was absolutely no dispute about the identity of the E. P. schedule property.

( 5 ) THE Executing Court, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 19-4-2007, dismissed the claim petition holding that the claim petitioner was bound by the decree and the objections raised by him were untenable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred CMA. No. 28 of 2007 in the Court of the III-Additional District Judge, Warangal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C. P. C. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the order dated 19-4-2007. Hence, this Revision Petition.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

( 7 ) THE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document