IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement of attestation for gift deeds and the condition precedent for maintaining an application under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Inasmuch as the issue involved in all the appeals and revision petitions is common, interconnected and arising out of the common orders, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By common orders, dated 28.11.2019, the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, allowed E.A. Nos. 213, 214 & 215 of 2016 filed by the children (representatives) of judgment debtor. By the same common orders, E.A. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2019 filed by the decree holder to reopen the case, recall R.W.1 and to receive additional evidence were dismissed. All these applications arose out of the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 31 of 2015 in O.S. No. 39 of 2010.

3. A.S. Nos. 162, 163 & 164 of 2021 are preferred by the decree holder being aggrieved by the common orders passed in E.A. Nos. 213, 214 & 215 of 2016 respectively, in allowing the applications filed by the representatives of the judgment debtor to declare them as the owners and possessors of the petition schedule properties and to delete the same from the E.P. schedule property. Whereas, C.R.P. Nos. 1062, 1075 & 1078 of 2021 are preferred by the decree holder challenging the dismissal of applications filed by him in E.A. Nos. 2, 1 & 3 of 2019 respectively, for reopening the case for receiving the documents; to recall R.W.1 for marking additional documents; and to receive additional documents i.e., orders, plaint and written statement in O.S. No. 72 of 2010. Whereas, C.R.P. No. 1076 of 2021 is filed by the decree holder challenging the docket orders dated 28.11.2019 in E.P. No. 31 of 2015 dismissing the E.P. in view of allowing E.A. Nos.213 to 215 of 2016.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Executing Court.

5. In this batch of cases, there are two sets of facts, one relating to the claim petitions i.e., E.A. Nos. 213 to 215 of 2016 and the other relating to E.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2019. Since the purview of E.A. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2019 is limited to that of reopening the case; recall R.W.1 and to receive additional documents in relation to O.S. No. 72 of 2010, this Court is of the view that the facts relating to E.A. Nos. 213 to 215 of 2016 are sufficient to deal with for the purpose of deciding the present batch of cases.

6. The facts that are necessary for disposal of the batch of these cases are that seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 06.07.2009, executed by the judgment debtor for sale of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4.16 guntas, situated in Sy. Nos. 333/EE/E, 341/UU & 342/A of Chandrupatla Revenue Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District, the decree holder instituted O.S. No. 39 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, which came to be decreed ex parte on 17.09.2014. Since the judgment debtor did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in terms of the decree, E.P. No. 31 of 2015 came to be instituted seeking execution of registered sale deed through the court. Pending the E.P. proceedings, the children of judgment debtor namely, Maddela Shiva Krishna, Maddela Nandini and Maddela Baby Rani filed applications i.e., E.A. Nos. 213, 214 & 215 of 2016 respectively, under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to declare them as the owners and possessors of the petition schedule properties i.e., the land to an extent of Ac.2.16 guntas in Sy. No. 341/UU; Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy. No. 333/EE/E; and Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.333/EE/E and to delete the said properties from the E.P. schedule properties contending that they are in exclusive possession of the said properties as lawful owners as their mother i.e., the judgment debtor, had executed registered gift settlement deeds bearing document Nos. 3392/2009, 3393/2009 & 3394/2009, all dated 10.12.2009 respectively. Since the date of settlement deeds, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and that the revenue authorities have also mutated t