IMPORTANT POINT
Even symbolic delivery of possession, amounts to actual delivery of possession.

B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This CRP is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2011 passed in O.S. No.171 of 2006 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

2. The defendants in the said suit are the petitioners herein and the plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent herein. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that one Gollamudi Radha Prathima, W/o Venkateswara Reddy obtained a decree against one Punyakoti Narasimha Rao and his wife Vijaya in O.S. No.242 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Thereafter the suit schedule property was attached on 20.04.2002 and it was brought for sale in execution proceedings in E.P. No.113 of 2003. The further case of the plaintiff is that, he participated in the auction held by the Court on 26.07.2005 and was declared as highest bidder for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and he obtained sale certificate. The further case of the plaintiff is that he filed EA No.25 of 2006 in OS No.242 of 1997 for delivery of the schedule property to him and an Amin was deputed to deliver the property, but as the doors were locked, on the application filed by him orders to break open the locks were passed and accordingly, the Amin broke open the locks of the house on 24.02.2006 and delivered the suit schedule property to him and since none of the judgment debtors or their men came forward to receive the movables in the house, the Amin had taken inventory of the same and handed over the same to him under proper bond. The plaintiff had put his own locks to the premises. On 28.02.2006, EA No.25 of 2006 was closed recording delivery of property to the plaintiff. On the same day, the defendants lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, V Town Police Station, Nellore, alleging that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore had granted house site pattas in their favour and that the plaintiff and others have trespassed into their house plots and the said complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.52 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the plaintiff and others. The further case of the plaintiff is that under the guise of criminal complaint lodged before the police, the first defendant broke open the locks put up by him and trespassed into the premises illegally and dispossessed him from the suit schedule property. The further case of the plaintiff is that one Naga Sarojini Devi filed a suit in O.S. No.56 of 2002 against Punyakoti Narasimha Rao and others on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Nellore and in the said suit the first defendant herein filed an application in I.A. No.664 of 2003, to come on record as party to that suit, and in the said application the first defendant stated that he purchased the suit schedule property from Punyakoti Narasimha Rao under registered sale deed dated 01.05.2002.

4. The specific case of the defendants is that in fact no patta was granted in favour of Punyakoti Narasimha Rao, but however he cheated several persons including the defendants contending that he became the owner of Plot bearing No.167 and that the plaintiff in O.S. No.242 of 1997, under a false notion that the said plot belonged to Punyakoti Narasimha Rao, attached the same. In fact, Punyakoti Narasimha Rao had no title to the said property nor was in possession of the same at any point of time. It is also his version that since Punyakoti Narasimha Rao had no title to the property the attachment of the said property in OS No.242 of 1997 was illegal and therefore the subsequent sale of the schedule property in Court auction is also hypothetical one. Their main case is that they are landless poor persons and Plot No.167 was sub-divided into Sy.No.167(a), 167(b) and 167(c) in an extent of each 12 1/2 Ankanams and the first defendant was allotted Plot No.167(b)