ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.03.2017 allowing E.A.No.13 of 2017 in E.P.No.32 of 2013 in O.S.No.248 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg, Anantapuram Distict filed under Order 21, Rules 58, 89, 90 and 91 r/w 151 CPC which is subsequently restricted to Order 21, Rule 9 CPC, to set aside the sale of the petition schedule property shown below, conducted on 27.10.2016 Schedule House situated in R.D. of Anantapur, SRD of Kalyandurg and in Kalyandurg town bearing D.No.8/772; measuring:

East-West = 27 ft. North-South = 28 ft.

Boundaries: East - Road West - House of Mangala Sreeramulu North - House of Venkatesulu South - House of Noorjahan Value of the property: Rs.3,00,000/-

2. The brief history of the case is as follows:

E.P.No.32 of 2013 was filed by the revision petitioner/DHr against the second respondent/JDr under Order 21, Rules 54, 64 and 66 CPC for realization of the EP amount of Rs.1,14,073/- with subsequent interest as per the decree by ordering attachment and sale of the schedule mentioned property. After JDr contested the execution petition, the property was put to sale by auction. On 27.10.2016, the sale was conducted declaring Sri M.Mohan Prakash of the Kalyandurg town as the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.3,80,000/-. The case was adjourned to 03.11.2016, for deposit of the balance 3/4th sale consideration and for hearing. On 03.11.2016 since the 3/4th amount of sale consideration was deposited by the auction purchaser, the case is adjourned to 27.12.2016 for confirmation of sale. Meanwhile, the first respondent/claim petitioner/third party filed this petition in E.A.No.13 of 2017 on 08.11.2016.

3. It is contended by the claimant that as she came to know about the sale of her property in the said auction held on 27.10.2016, she filed this petition as she is the absolute owner of the property having got the property under a patta issued by the MRO of Kalyandurg vide HSR Dis No.1406 dated 14.08.1996 and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing a house therein with door No.8/772 and 8/773. She further stated that JDr has nothing to do with the EP schedule property and the execution petition was filed by DHr and JDr in collusion. She further stated that there was no proclamation and beat of tom tom in the premises. Though the DHr has not filed any document of title of JDr to show that the JDr is the owner of the EP schedule property, the property was sold in auction without identifying the property and following the due procedure.

There is fraud committed and also the material irregularities in conducting the auction. Moreover, EP schedule property is not saleable as the property was assigned by the Government. Therefore, she prayed to set aside the sale.

4. The petition was resisted by the DHr by filing counter that the alleged patta is false and fabricated and it does not relate to the petition schedule property. It is false that the claimant has constructed house in the said site for which door Nos.8/772 and 8/773 were assigned. It is false that DHr and JDr connived in getting the property sold in auction. The claimant is no way concerned with the EP schedule property. The claimant’s husband and JDr are natural brothers and the claim petition was filed in collusion to drag on the proceedings. It is not correct that there was no proclamation and beat of tom tom. There is no irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale since the petitioner has not deposited the amount as per Order 21, Rule 89 CPC, the petition is not maintainable. Thus, the DHr prayed to dismiss the petition. The second respondent/JDr has not chosen to contest the petition and has not filed counter.

5. After hearing the claimant and DHr, the execution Court passed the order impugned in the revision.

6. The claimant filed Ex.P.1-original house site patta in HSR Dis No.1406 dated 14.08.1996 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalyandurg,