IMPORTANT POINT
Third parties can file applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to assert their rights before dispossession, ensuring procedural fairness in execution proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The present Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order in CMA No. 4 of 2008 dated 20.04.2018 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati in setting aside the Order passed in E.A. No. 91 of 2015 in E.P. No. 172 of 2011 in O.S. No. 77 of 1994, dated 06.12.2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

2. The petitioner is the decree holder and the respondent No. 1 is the claim petitioner while the respondent No. 2 is the judgment debtor.

3. The facts leading to the present case are as follows:

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent No. 2 on the basis of agreement of sale dated 29.10.1992 and the trial Court after consideration passed Judgment and Decree in favour of the petitioner on 14.08.2000. Consequently, the registered sale deed dated 21.11.2002 was executed in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner sought to take possession of the suit schedule property, the respondent No. 1 filed claim petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC claiming right in the schedule property. The claim petition was filed by the third party through GPA holder.

4. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the respondent No. 1 had executed a registered GPA dated 24.01.2015 vide document No. 385/2015 in favour of K. Sunil Kumar to look after and manage the schedule property. It is the case in the claim petitioner that the schedule property originally belonged to one Agarala Eswar Reddy, former Speaker in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. The said Agarala Eswar Reddy had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the schedule mentioned property in favour of one N. Parameswar Nair on 12.04.1977 vide document No. 693/1977. The said N. Parameswar Nair sold a part of the schedule property to one Chanda Murali by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1993 vide document No. 1722/1993. The said Chanda Murali after purchasing the site applied for building plan to Gram Panchayat, Renugunta and the plan was approved vide Proceedings No. 28/1995-96, dated 03.06.1995. In accordance with the approved plan, the said Chanda Murali constructed a house and the property tax was being levied by the Gram Panchayat in Assessment No. 2970 bearing D. No. 14-62-5, Panchali Nagar, Renigunta. Electricity service connection as also the water tap connection also provided to the said house.

5. The said Chanda Mohan sold the schedule property to the claim petitioner i.e. S.Parvathi under a registered sale deed on 22.11.2000 vide document No. 2834/2000 and delivered possession to the claim petitioner. Subsequently, the name of the claim petitioner was mutated in the Gram Panchayat records and in the Property Tax Register with new Assessment No. 1899 and door number was changed from 14-62-5 to 14-355, Panchali Nagar, Renigunta. The application was filed along with the documents referred supra. The petitioner has sought to take possession of the property pursuant to the specific performance Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1994 against the respondent No. 2.

6. The petitioner filed counter contending that the petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and Rule 47 CPC has no application and that the applications filed by the respondent No. 1 are to be rejected. The petitioner denied the contents of the claim petition, but did not explain as to the source of title of Respondent No. 2 for execution of the sale deed.

7. In the course of enquiry, PW-1 K. Sunil Kumar was examined as PW-1 and P. Lakhsminarayana was examined as PW-2. The claim petitioner filed Exs.P.1 and P.12 i.e. documents referred in the claim petition. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the judgment debtor. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that PW-1 has no personal knowledge of survey number, boundaries and the extent of the suit property and that he does not know the consideration amount even though PW-2 was cross examined. Aggrieved thereby, the claim petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 4 of 2018 before the X Addit