ORDER:

The challenge in this C.R.P. at the instance of the petitioner/judgment debtor is to the order dated 24.08.2019 in E.P.No.452/2014 in O.S.No.75/2004 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu whereby and whereunder the learned Judge while discarding the contentions of the judgment debtor allowed the execution petition and ordered the sale of E.P. schedule property.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.75/2004 against the judgment debtor on the file of the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Gooty and obtained money decree and got transferred the decree to the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu and filed E.P.No.452/2014 seeking to execute the decree by conducting auction sale of the E.P. schedule mentioned property for realisation of the E.P. amount. By order of the execution Court the E.P. schedule property was attached on 08.01.2015 by the Court Ameen. On receiving the notice, the judgment debtor appeared and inter alia contended in the E.P. that she has no saleable title and interest over the E.P. schedule property. The execution Court negatived her contention observing that from the Field Assistant report dated 25.02.2016 the E.P. schedule property was attached on 01.08.2006 and therefore, execution can be processed and interested party, if any, may come and file claim petition at an appropriate stage.

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the arguments of Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the execution Court erred in holding that the attachment dated 01.08.2006 made in earlier E.P.No.105/2006 is still in subsistence. He would argue that the ex parte decree was set aside on the petition filed by the petitioner and thereby E.P.No.105/2006 was set aside and consequently the attachment, if any, made had also fallen to the ground. That was why, after filing the present E.P.No.452/2014, the respondent/decree holder got the E.P. schedule property again attached on 08.01.2015. However, during the interregnum period, the judgment debtor due to her family conditions, has executed a registered Gift Deed dated 26.04.2011 in favour of her son in respect of the E.P. schedule property and therefore, as on the date of filing of E.P.No.452/2014 and on the date of attachment made in the said E.P., the judgment debtor had no legal title over the said property as it was vested in her son. However, the execution Court without considering these facts simply allowed the E.P. on the observation that the interested party may approach the Court with a claim petition at the appropriate stage. He argued that the order of the lower Court would pave way for the multiplicity of the proceedings in addition to unnecessary prolongation of the execution proceedings.

5. Per contra, Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, would argue that the attachment made during the previous execution petition continued and after filing the present E.P., once again the E.P. schedule property was got attached as an abundant caution and hence, the settlement deed executed by the judgment debtor with a malice intention to defeat the E.P. proceedings will have no impact on the E.P. proceedings.

6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the execution Court no doubt mentioned that the E.P. schedule property was attached on 01.08.2006. However, there is no further observation as to whether the said attachment, which was made during the earlier execution proceedings, continued even after dismissal of the earlier E.P.No.105/2006 or not. The copy of the Gift Deed filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor shows that the judgment debtor executed the registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of her son on 26.04.2011. In that view, the crucial question is whether the attachment, said to be made on 01.08.2006 in E.P.No.105/2006, continued or not eve