JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, assisted by Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. V. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents No.3 to 8.

2. The 1st respondent is the original plaintiff/decree holder. Respondents No.3 to 8 are his legal representatives brought on record on the death of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the defendant/judgment debtor. In spite of service, the 2nd respondent did not enter appearance in the appeal.

3. The appellants are the claim petitioners in E.A.No.42 of 2019 in E.P.No.111 of 2019 filed by the plaintiff/decree holder for execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (in short ‘learned Court’). The appellants filed the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’). The same was rejected by Order and Decree dated 05.08.2024, against which the present appeal has been filed.

I. Facts:

i) O.S.No.16 of 2016:

4. The plaintiff/1^st respondent filed O.S.No.16 of 2016 agaist the 2st respondent/defendant for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 01.07.2006 for direction to execute a registered sale deed and in case of his failure, to get it executed by due process of law. The suit was decreedexparte on 12.04.2017. Decree for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- with future interest @12% per annum from 09.12.2013 was granted. In case of the defendant’s failure, the plaintiff was set at liberty to obtain registered sale deed by due process of law by depositing the balance consideration within a specificed time.

5. The decree dated 12.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.16 of 2016 attained finality. The decree holder deposited the balance of sale consideration pursuant to the decree.

ii) E.P.No. 59 of 2017:

6. The 1^st respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.59 of 2017 for obtaining the registered sale deed from the Court. The registered sale deed was executed by the Court on 21.02.2018.

iii) E.P.No.111 of 2019 and E.A.No.42 of 2019:

7. Later on, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.111 of 2019 for delivery of possession of the property. The VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole ordered for delivery of possession.

8. The appellants filed claim petition in E.A.No.42 of 2019 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. They contended that the 2nd respondent intended to sell the schedule property for the purpose of discharging the mortgage debt due to the wife of the 1st respondent against the security of the schedule property under registered simple mortgage deed dated 25.11.2004 in favour of the 1st respondent’s wife. They set up the case that the 2nd respondent alienated the schedule property to the 1st appellant on 17.01.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- which was paid to the 2nd respondent. The original registered sale deed dated 13.04.2004 of the 2nd respondent and the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the 1st appellant. The registered sale deed was not executed, but the 2nd respondent executed the registered General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement dated 17.01.2007 in favour of the 1st appellant. The General Power of Attorney-cum-Sale Agreement contained a clause for execution of the regular sale deed either in his own favour or in favour of any other person of his choice. It was alleged that the 2^nd respondent discharged mortgage debt of the 1^st respondent’s wife on 23.04.2007 and the 1^st respondent’s wife executed a registered discharge deed on 23.04.2007, which were handed over to the 1^st appellant. The 1^st appellant’s further case was that the 1^st appellant leased out the schedule property to the 2^nd appellant (the wife of the 1^st appellant) under the lease agreement dated 26.06.2008 for a period of two years and basing upon the said lease, the 2nd appellant started Bar and