Important Point—Creditors include prospective creditors.

1. The respective revision petitioner are the sole plaintiff respectively by name TSC Bose in both the suits viz. O.S. No. 505 of 2009 and O.S. No. 72 of 2008 filed by him for recovery of Rs.42,72,330/- and Rs.15,48,199/- respectively with interest and costs against the self-same defendant (J. Dr.) by name A.S.V. Pothuraju and said suits were decreed on 30.07.2012 and 23.10.2009 respectively and in pursuance to said decrees, the respective revision petitioner (decree holders) filed E.P. No. 100 of 2012 and 74 of 2012 respectively under Order XXI Rules 64 and 65 CPC, against the J. Dr. and by not showing son of the J. Dr./3rd party to the two suits as 2nd respondent in both the Execution Petitions, even the contest of J. Dr. was that he settled the property in favour of his son for proclamation and sale of the E.P. schedule property, which was attached before judgment in both the suits, to realize from the sale proceeds the respective decree debts by the D. Hrs.

2. It was after filing of sale papers and upon verification of the record by the executing Court, it was noticed about the non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 14 CPC and therefrom on 25.11.2013, directed the D. Hr. to comply the same by filing certificate of transferable interest of the J. Dr. over the property and taxes due if any to the revenue department. It was on compliance noticed from memo of D. Hr. the property stands in the name of son of J. Dr. by name Gowtham, the executing Court directed notice before proclamation if any and settlement of terms to ascertain value of the property. The son of J. Dr. appeared and permitted to lead evidence by order dated 07.07.2014 to decide his claim if any else the salable interest of J. Dr. for D. Hr. to bring the property to sale. D. Hr. deposed as PW.1 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A4 and the son of J. Dr. (R2) deposed as RW.1 and cause examined one K.V. Sridhar as RW.2 and Exs.B1 to B8 marked. It was after hearing arguments from said evidence and on contest the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, dismissed the respective Execution Petitions and said D. Hr. respectively having been aggrieved preferred both the revisions impugning the respective orders, with the similar contentions in the grounds of two revisions.

3. The contentions in the revision grounds and oral submissions are that the lower Court acted illegally in ordering notice and calling upon D. Hr. to comply with Order XXI Rule 14 by filing certificate of J. Dr’s transferable interest and tax dues if any to the revenue Department when the Court has already decided to proceed with the respective Execution Petitions by order dated 03.04.2013 by disbelieving the contention of J. Dr. as to the absence of his salable interest in the E.P. schedule property. The lower Court further acted illegally by once again issuing notice on 06.03.2014 to the J. Dr. and his son, as it is evident and the issue has already been decided that the E.P. Schedule property belongs to J. Dr. only but he has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son (who is 3rd party to the present proceedings) and subsequently the J. Dr. has cancelled the settlement deed, as such the title and salable interest in the property vests in the J. Dr. only. The lower Court ought to have seen that even as per the objections raised by the son of J.Dr., the property belongs to J. Dr. only and that the J. Dr. executed a settlement deed in favour of his minor son and later cancelled which goes to show that the property belongs to J. Dr. only in view of the cancellation, and also prior to it, the J. Dr. alone has got salable interest in E.P. Schedule property. The lower Court ought to have seen that once it is accepted that the J. Dr. has got right and title to convey the property to his minor son, it must also be accepted that he has got power to revoke conveyance of the property and his son cannot claim any independent right or vested interest in the property, merely because the entries we