1 APHC010292592016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1803/2016 Between: 1. M V K RAO [DIED] & 3 OTHERS, - 2. MUTYALA MUNIKANTA, W/O. VENKATA KRIHANARAO, KGED: 45 YEARS, OCC: PROPERTIES, R/O. PENAKANAMETTA, KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. MUTYALA SIRISHA, D/O. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, AGED: 20 YEARS, R/O. PENAKANAMETTA, KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MUTYALA RAMBABU, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNARAO, AGED: 22 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. PENAKAMETTA, KOVVUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NALLAKULA ANANTHA LAKSHMI W G DIST, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged: 45 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Penakanametta Savaram, H/o. Penakanametta, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 2 1. M R S SRINIVAS 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1803 of 2016 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed in E.P.No.56 of 2012 in O.S.No.506 of 2001 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, whereby the petition filed under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 of CPC for sale of the attached schedule property for realization of decree amount in O.S.No.506 of 2001 was allowed. 2. Heard Sri Sk.Md.Asthaf, learned counsel representing Sri MRS Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the schedule property does not stand in the name of 1st JDr and therefore, the same cannot be ordered for sale. The further contention of the petitioners is that the Court below ought to have considered that, after the death of one late Ramadasu, his wife filed a suit in O.S.No.205 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur for permanent injunction in respect of the very same properties as mentioned in the will dated 12.05.1994. Subsequently, the said suit was compromised on 27.11.2002, and in terms of the said 4 compromise, the will was accepted. As such, the judgment debtors have no right over the property, as such, the same cannot be brought under sale. 4. As observed by the learned Executing Court, the entries in the pattadhar pass book of judgment debtor were made on 08.07.2004. However, the contention was that the pattadhar pass book was issued prior to the order passed in I.A.No.504 of 2001. A perusal of the material on record makes it clear that the order of attachment was passed on 28.01.2002 and the mutation in the revenue records were effected on 08.07.2004 i.e., after the date of attachment. This clearly indicates that such entries were created only to defeat the decree passed in favour of the decree holder. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly allowed the application. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the Order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.06.2026 Dvs 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 290 CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.1803 of 2016 Date: 19.06.2026 Dvs