JUDGMENT :

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. The appellant instituted E.A. No. 133 of 2014 in E.P. No. 6 of 2014 in O.S. No. 62 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, against the respondents.

2. The first respondent was the decree-holder in E.P. No. 6 of 2014 in O.S. No. 62 of 2010 and the second respondent was the Judgment-debtor therein.

3. E.P. No. 6 of 2014 in O.S. No. 62 of 2010 was filed in execution of the decree in the suit and mode of execution sought is by sale of the E.P. schedule property.

4. Smt.Thunuguntla Swaroopa Lakshmi is the sister of the second respondent. The appellant had purchased ‘A’ schedule property mentioned in his claim petition from Smt.Thunuguntla Swaroopa Lakshmi along with other properties under a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2011. According to the appellant, this sale deed was preceded by a registered agreement for sale dated 31.07.2010.

5. The first respondent got E.P. schedule property attached before judgment in I.A. No. 824 of 2020 in O.S. No. 62 of 2010 and it was effected on 13.05.2020.

6. Contending that sale of the property purchased by him from the sister of the second respondent in Court auction is proper and legally tenable, since it exclusively belonged to his vendor, the appellant requested to raise attachment in terms of Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in his claim petition in E.A. No. 133 of 2014. His further contention before the executing Court was that the second respondent and his vendor Smt. Thunuguntla Swaroopa Lakshmi had entered into a relinquishment deed dated 29.04.2010 whereby his vendor was given the property, which is subject matter of sale in the execution petition. According to him, this property could not have been attached since it belonged to his vendor exclusively, over which the second respondent has no right or interest and which cannot be sold in execution of the decree. Asserting his exclusive right, title and interest to this property, the appellant required the executing Court to declare that he is the absolute owner of this property with which the second respondent has no concern and raise the attachment.

7. The first respondent-decree-holder resisted his claim on several grounds, particularly questioning the alleged sale in favour of the appellant, not only as an outcome of collusion but also on account of the collusion between the second respondent and his sister, who brought out a registered relinquishment deed. The main defence of the first respondent to consider at present is that the sale deed dated 29.01.2011 in favour of the appellant was obtained from his vendor when this property was under attachment effected lawfully by orders of the trial Court and therefore cannot bind his rights. He further contended that the attempt of the appellant is to delay the execution proceedings, at a belated stage brought out designedly.

8. Before the executing Court, evidence was let in by the parties, both oral and documentary. Upon considering the material and evidence, the executing Court mainly considered the effect of Section 64 CPC and held that the sale in favour of the appellant being void, since entered into during subsistence of attachment directed by the Court of this property. Thus, the executing Court did not accept upon the request of the appellant leading to dismissal of his claim petition. Learned appellate Judge confirmed the dismissal of the claim petition of the appellant.

9. This second appeal is presented in these circumstances.

10. At the stage of admission, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant is requested to address about maintainability of this second appeal, particularly, in the light of the application of Section 64 CPC and maintainability of the claim petition by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.

11. Thereupon, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. C. Brahmaramba, learned counsel for the first respondent, who had entered caveat on his behalf addressed arguments.

12. With