ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 04.08.2018 allowing the E.P. and directing to sell item No.4 of the E.P. schedule in view of the finding that items No.1 and 4 of the E.P. schedule properties are the estate of the deceased Vempati Koti Reddy in E.P.No.131 of 2007 in O.S.No.220 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, Guntur District.

2. The 1st respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.220 of 2004 against the revision petitioners No.1 to 4 for realization of the money based on a promissory note executed by Vempati Koti Reddy who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the petitioners No.2 to 4 and sought a decree for realization of the said amount from the estate of the deceased Koti Reddy. Accordingly, the suit was decreed on 21.08.2007. E.P.No.131 of 2007 was filed against all the JDrs No.1 to 4 with a prayer to put the following items No.1 to 4 of the E.P. schedule properties for sale to realize the decretal amount of Rs.81,789/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.46,300/-.

3. The JDrs filed a counter resisting the EP contending that item No.1 which is the house property is exempted from attachment under Section 60 CPC and that items No.2 and 3 are landed properties belonging to the 1st JDr who got them from her mother and were being enjoyed by her as absolute property and further that item No.4 which is also a landed property belongs to the 2nd JDr having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 21.05.1984. The JDrs further contended that value of the properties mentioned by DHr are very low and also EP is not maintainable and hit by the provisions of the principles of res judicata and that the deceased Vempati Koti Reddy has no saleable interest over the items No.1 to 4.

4. On behalf of the DHr, he himself got examined as PW.1 and Vempati Rami Reddy was examined as PW.2, and Ex.P.1 affidavit, petition schedule in I.A.No.545 of 2004 in O.S.No.220 of 2022, Ex.P.2 certified copy of counter and Ex.P.3 certified copy of order and decree copy therein were marked.

5. On behalf of the JDrs the 3rd JDr was examined as RW.1, the 1st JDr was examined as RW.2 and third parties were examined as RWs 3 and 4 and Exs.R.1 registered sale deed dated 21.05.1984, R.2 true copy of pass book, R.3 receipt dated 15.05.1982 for fasli 1391, R.4 case receipt dated 13.01.1981 for fasli 1391, R.5 cist receipt dated 16.02.1980 for fasli 1389, Ex.R.6 APSEB pass book, Ex.R.7 certified copy of original of Ex.R.2 issued by Panchayat Secretary, Koppunuru and Ex.R.8 certified copy of certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Koppunuru were marked.

6. After hearing both parties, the execution Court accepted the contention of the JDrs that the properties in items No.2 and 3 belonging to 1st JDr, however declined to accept the contention in respect of items No.1 and 4 and held that they belong to the estate of the deceased Vempati Koti Reddy and are available to sell them to satisfy the decree and accordingly, in view of the amount realisable under the decree and the values of these properties, directed to proceed with the execution to sell item No.4 of E.P.

schedule.

7. Having aggrieved by the order, the revision petition was filed by all the JDrs.

8. Pending the revision petition, since the sole respondent/DHr died, his LRs were brought on record as respondents No.2 to 7 vide orders dated 14.09.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 as per memo vide USR No.52575/2022 dated 16.08.2022. As per the memo dated 11.10.2022 filed by the counsel for the revision petitioners, the service of notice as permitted by this Court was affected on their counsel appearing before the execution Court. Inspite of the same, no appearance has been made. The record shows that the notices in I.A.No.1 of 2022 were served on respondents No.2, 3, 5 and 6, but notices of respondents No.4 and 7 were returned unserved.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petition