Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
Gaddipati Bullemma W/o Mohana Rao – Appellant
Versus
Thota Venkayamma (Died) – Respondent
A.S. No. 2398 of 2000, C.M.A. No. 2970 of 2000
Decided On : 12-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
| Heading | Para Nos. within the judgment |
| FACTUAL BACKGROUND | 1-8 |
| PROCEDURAL HISTORY IN O.S. No. 117/1994 |
|
| • Pleadings of the Parties | 9 |
| • Issues Framed | 10 |
| • Evidence Recorded | 11-12 |
| • Findings of the Trial Court | 13-14 |
| PROCEDURAL HISTORY IN E.A. No. 144 of 1998 |
|
| • Pleadings in E.A. No. 144 of 1998 | 15 |
| • Points framed | 16 |
| • Findings of the Court | 17 |
| GROUNDS OF APPEAL |
|
| • In the A.S. | 20 |
| • In the C.M.A. | 21 |
| ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AT THE BAR |
|
| • By the Appellant’s Counsel | 22 |
| • By the Respondent’s Counsel | 23 |
| POINTS FOR DETERMINATION |
|
| • Duty of the Appellate Court | 24-27 |
| • Points Framed | 28 |
| DETERMINATION BY THE COURT |
|
| • Previous Rounds of Litigation | 29-34 |
| • Doctrine of Res Judicata & Application | 38-76 |
| • Adverse Possession & Application | 77-85 |
| • Limitation for filing a Suit for Declaration of title | 86-89 |
| • Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code & Application | 90-99 |
| • Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code & Application | 100-106 |
| • Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code & Application | 107-111 |
| CONCLUSION | 112-116 |
1. The genesis of this litigation arose out of a money transaction which, happened around sixty-seven (67) years ago. Mathe Kotaiah borrowed an amount of Rs.500/- from Thota Venkayamma in 1956, what followed till date is the relentless hurdles faced by Thota Venkayamma in the execution proceedings.
2. Appellants and respondents in both the matters and the issue relating to the subject property are one and the same and are thus inter-related. Hence, these appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.
3. For easy understanding the parties are referred to in this Judgment as mentioned in the table:
| PARTY NAME/DATE OF DEATH | REFERENCE | L.R. ON RECORD AFTER DEATH OF ORIGINAL PARTY |
| Late Mathe Kotaiah (20.10.90) | Borrower/Judgment Debtor | Mathe Sri Lakshmi, His Wife was brought on record as respondent. |
| Late Thota Venkayamma (10.06.97) | Lender/Decree holder/Auction purchaser | Lingineni Lakshmi Sundari, her daughter, was brought on record as legal representative and is a respondent in these Appeals. |
| Late Talasila Agravani (24.09.90) | Third Party/claimant under agreement of sale | After her death, Gaddipati Bullemma filed the suit and petition under appeal and she is Appellant in these appeals. |
In that view of the matter, this Court will hereinafter refer to the parties through their names or as decree-holder, Judgment debtor and third-party claimants in these appeals.
4. Challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 117 of 1994, vide Common Judgment dated 18.08.2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali, the unsuccessful plaintiff/Gaddipati Bullemma filed this Appeal Suit.
5. Impugning the Order in E.A. No. 144 of 1998 in E.P. No. 537/1965 in OS No. 68/1962 (E.A. No. 370 of 1991) on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Repalle, transferred to try along with O.S. No. 117 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, dismissing the application filed under Order-XXI Rule 97, 101 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short ‘the Code’] in E.P. No. 537 of 1965 in O.S. No. 68 of 1962, the unsuccessful petitioner/Gaddipati Bullemma preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge vide Common Judgment 18.08.2000, disposed of O.S. No. 117 of 1994, E.A. No. 144 of 1998, O.S. No. 120 of 1984 and O.S. No. 49 of 1998 in the following terms:
| CASE NO. | FILED BY | RELIEF SOUGHT | DECISION |
| O.S. No. 120/1984 | Thota Venkayamma | Suit for recovery of rent and profits and damages for use and occupation o | |
AI
The court affirmed the application of res judicata in barring claims based on a previously invalidated sale agreement, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation and rejecting claims of adverse ....
The court affirmed that disputes regarding execution of decrees must be resolved by the executing court, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated with evidence.
A transferee of a judgment debtor cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 for re-delivery, as their rights must be independent of the judgment debtor's rights.
The court ruled that failure to deposit the mandatory 25% bid amount in a court auction renders the sale void, necessitating a resale, and coercive measures against the auction purchaser are not perm....
Auction sales under CPC require strict adherence to mandatory deposit rules, failing which the sale is void ab initio and cannot be ratified by subsequent actions.
A sale under Order XXI Rule 90 can only be set aside if the applicant proves both material irregularity and substantial injury resulting from it.
The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is 60 days from the date of sale, and the stay period does not save the limitation.
A charged property can be executed for recovery under a decree without instituting a separate suit, and rateable distribution is only available to pending applications from decree-holders at the time....
The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is sixty days, not thirty, and stay orders do not exclude this period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
