Order:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order made in E.P.No.30 of 2019 in O.S.No.206 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nellore.

2. The revision petitioner is the J.Dr and the respondent is the D.Hr.

3. The execution petition is filed for realization of Rs.10,27,243/- by sale of properties attached in I.A.No.285 of 2015 dated 06.05.2015 which was made absolute on 17.09.2019. The execution petition schedule contains four items. Execution petition was resisted by the J.Dr by filing counter stating that he is not the owner of E.P. schedule properties and that he has no saleable interest over the schedule property. He stated that he is owner of 6½ ankanams of undivided part in the house site shown in the schedule property (item No.4) and the remaining 6½ ankanams of site belongs to his wife as both of them jointly purchased the property under Document No.3623/2009 dated 04.05.2009 and therefore, execution petition is not maintainable. He further stated that he along with his wife sold the property to Muppasani Girish Kumar under registered document bearing No.16584 of 2023 dated 16.12.2023 and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. After hearing both parties, the execution court ordered for settlement of terms knowing that the respondent/J.Dr had only 6½ ankanams of site in the schedule property and thereby to the extent of his admission, he has right in that property. Further it noted that the property was already attached by virtue of orders of I.A.No.285 of 2015 and keeping in view the property lying in the name of J.Dr, the Court was convinced to conclude that it could proceed with settlement of terms.

5. Thereafter, the auction notice was published in the newspaper dated 10.09.2024 putting the entire extent of 96.88 Sq.yards i.e.13 ankanams of site to sale through auction. Then the JDR approached this Court by filing the revision petition contending that the execution court put to sale the entire extent of property, including the extent of property of his wife.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the same ground during the course of the arguments. The learned counsel for the respondent/D.Hr contended that the petitioner committed fraud in collusion with his wife by selling the property to third party in the year 2023 in spite of order of attachment in force and further stating that the petitioner is in possession of it. He further stated that the wife of the revision petitioner/J.Dr has never raised any objection for the attachment of property since 2015 and thus, there is no merit in the revision.

7. As can be seen from the order impugned in the revision, there is a specific question and observation of the execution court that JDR raised objection against the sale of property shown in Item No.4 stating that he has jointly purchased the property with his wife and he has only right only upto 6½ ankanams of property, yet there is no observation of the execution court that it can proceed further only to the extent of 6½ ankanams of site only.

8. However, it further observed that the property was attached by virtue of order in I.A.No.285 of 2015, dated 06.05.2015 and also kept in view that the immovable property is lying in the name of the JDR and proceeded to settle terms of sale. As such, it is obvious that without giving findings as to what extent the property attached can be sold for realization of the decreetal amount in view of the document of title in the name of the JDR filed by the JDR and also the similar ground taken, the approach of the execution court is not proper to put the entire property to sale.

9. It is pertinent to mention that even at the time of settlement of terms before the publication of the auction notice, there was no effort made to state the extent of property that can be sold is 6½ ankanams of site, but notice of sale was published to the total extent of 96.88 Sq.yards (equal to