ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/J.Dr-1 under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ’CPC’) against the orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in E.P.No.50 of 2013 in O.S.No.111 of 2013 dated 08.12.2014 wherein and whereby learned Judge allowed the execution petition filed by the respondents 1 to 3/D.Hrs. and ordered for settlement of terms to proceed further in respect of execution petition schedule immovable property.

2. The execution petition is filed by the respondents 1 to 3/D.Hrs. under Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 CPC against the revision petitioner/J.Dr.1 for sale of mortgage schedule property belongs to late Ankaraboyina Pardha Saradhi, which is in the hands of revision petitioner/J.Dr. to realise decretal amount of Rs.5,02,444/-.

3. The case of the revision petitioner/J.Dr.1 in brief is that decree sought to be executed by the respondents 1 to 3/D.Hrs. is a mortgage decree against J.Drs.1 and 3, who are said to be succeeded mortgaged property from original mortgager late Mr. Ankaraboyina Pardha Saradhi. She submits that the mortgage property as shown in the mortgage deed is the western half of the ground floor of the terraced building without any specific measurements, which consists of three floors with same measurements and the said property is inseparable from the building wherein 5th respondent/3rd J.Dr. is having equal right with that of other J.Drs. due to that decree is un-executable. It is the contention of the revision petitioner/J.Dr.1 that property shown in the execution petition schedule is in excess of the property shown in the decree, due to that execution petition is not maintainable and no relief is sought in execution petition against J.Dr.3, which is liable to be dismissed. She further submits that she is the wife and respondents 4, 5/J.Dr.2, J.Dr.3 are daughters of late Ankaraboyina Pardha Saradhi and they became owners of immovable property after the demise of Mr. Ankaraboyina Pardha Saradhi and they are not the leniel descedents of Mr.Pardha Saradhi. Due to that no pious obligation for them to discharge ancestral debt borrowed by Mr. Ankaraboyina Pardha Saradhi, which is not liable for attachment and sale in execution of the decree. It is also the contention of revision petitioner/J.Dr.1 that total value of the entire building consisting of three floors is about 3 crores as the building is situated in the prime locality of the town, but respondents 1 to 3/D.Hrs. deflated the value suppressing the real value, filed execution petition and the value of the half of the western portion of the ground floor of the building is not less than 50 lakhs. She prays to dismiss the petition.

4. Before executing Court, respondent No.3/D.Hr.3 examined as P.W.1 and no documents were marked. On behalf of revision petitioner/J.Dr.1, she herself examined as R.W.1, Ex.B1 certified copy of mortgage deed dated 31.10.1996 marked in her evidence.

5. The executing Court after hearing both sides, allowed the execution petition filed by respondents 1 to 3/D.Hrs. by overruling the objections raised by the revision petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by orders passed by the executing Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/J.Dr.1 stating that order of the Court below is erroneous, contrary to law and is a result of improper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. She also stated that the order of the Court below is opposed to the very spirit and object of provisions of Order XXI Rule 64 CPC and Court below ought to have seen that the suit schedule property is only half of the ground floor portion towards the western side of the entire building consisting of three floors, which value is nearly 3 crores which property put to sale for the meagre amount of Rs.5,02,444/- and not considered the objection raised by her in her counter. She prays to allow the revision petition and dismiss the execution petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the revi