APHC010528762023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2778/2023 Between: 1. BUSI SRINIVASULU, S/O.POLAIAH, AGE 65 YEARS, HINDU, RETIRED TEACHER, R/O. D.NO.7-10-22, INDURIVARI STREET, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PERAMANA RAMESH, S/O. SRINIVASULU, AGE 34 YEARS, HINDU. 2. PERAMANAVIJAESWARI, D/O. SRINIVASULU, AGE 30 YEARS, HINDU. 3. PERAMANA PRASAD, S/O. SRINIVASULU, AGE 27 YEARS, HINDU (RESPONDENTS.NO.1 TO NO.3 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.7-10-37, INDURIVARI STREET, SANKULAVARI THOTA, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT) 4. SOMISETTYSUBBA RAO, S/O. MALAKONDAIAH, AGE 45 YEARS, HINDU, BUSSINESS,R/O. SAKUNALAPALLI VILLAGE, KURRAPALLI POST, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. SOMISETTYHARISANKAR, S/O. MALAKONDAIAH, AGE 35 YEARS, HINDU, BUSSINESS, R/O. SAKUNALAPALLI VILLAGE,KURRAPALLI POST, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 6. SOMISETTYNARAYANAMMA, W/O. MALAKONDAIAH, AGE 65 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. SAKUNALAPALLI VILLAGE, KURRAPALLI POST, UDAYAGIRI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. PERAMANA SARASWATHI, W/O. SRINIVASULU, AGE 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO.7-10-37, INDURIVARI STREET, SANKULAVARI THOTA, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 8. ANUMALASETTISUBBARATNAMMA, W/O. LATE. VS,J crp_2778_2023 2 VENKATESWARLU, AGE 45 YEARS, HINDU, C/O. J.SURESH BABU,SARADAMMA BUILDINGS, UPSTAIRS, 3RD CROSS OPPOSITE TO OMSEKTHI TEMPLE, JALAHALLI WEST, KG HALLI, BANGALORE. 9. JAYAM SULOCHANA, W/O. SURESH BABU, AGE 32 YEARS, HINDU, C/O. J.SURESH BABU, SARADAMMA BUILDINGS, UPSTAIRS, 3RD CROSS OPPOSITE TO OMSEKTHI TEMPLE, JALAHALLI WEST, KG HALLI, BANGALORE. 10. AMALA RENUKA, W/O. RAMESH, AGE 30 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. STONESHOUSEPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.08.2023 passed in CMA.N0.15 OF 2021 on the file of Hon'ble I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NELLORE, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to STAY the operation of the Order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CMA.NO.15 OF 2021 on the file of Hon'ble I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: NELLORin the interest of justice and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the operation of the interim order dated 27.11.2023 (as extended up to 12.02.2024) passed by this Hon’ble Court in the present Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice and equity. And pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM 2. A V V S N MURTHY The Court made the following: VS,J crp_2778_2023 3 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the respondent No.5, who is the auction purchaser, Under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) challenging the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereby the Court below allowed the said C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 setting aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.55 of 2006 dated 30.10.2007. 2) The revision petitioner herein is respondent No.5 in C.M.A.No.15 of 2021, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are appellants and respondent Nos.4 to 10 are respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 in the said appeal. 3) Brief facts of the case are as follows: Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to one Chandrapati Chandramouli, who is the father of respondent No.7 herein. During his life time, the said Chandramouli mortgaged the plaint schedule property with one A.Venkateswarlu under a registered mortgage deed dated 07.08.1997 and subsequently discharged the entire mortgage debt of Rs.2,39,000/- on 27.01.2000, as such, he endorsed the same on the back side of the mortgage deed, and agreed to execute a registered redemption deed as and when required by Chandramouli. Thereafter, the said Chandramouli executed a Will dated 16.02.2000 bequeathing the properties in favour of the children of respondent No.7, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, and handed over the original VS,J crp_2778_2023 4 registered mortgage deed dated 07.08.1997 to them. Aggrieved by the execution of Will in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, their mother-respondent No.7 having colluded with others with an intention to sell away the property got filed the suit O.S.No.7 of 2003 as the said mortgage was transferred by A.Venkateswarlu in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 herein and obtained ex parte decree dated 07.04.2003 and in execution proceedings E.P.No.55 of 2006, the suit schedule property was brought to sale. 4) Revision petitioner herein purchased the property in the auction conducted by the Court on 30.10.2007 and a sale certificate was issued to him. On coming to know about the same, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are children of respondent No.7, filed O.S.No.191 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali for declaration of their right and title over the suit schedule property and to declare the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2003 passed in O.S.No.7 of 2003 as null and void. However, the said suit O.S.No.191 of 2007 was dismissed on 07.11.2019 on the ground that the plaintiff therein i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have failed to establish their title over the auctioned property as they could not prove the Will dated 16.02.2000 and they have no locus standi to question the earlier decree passed in O.S.No.07 of 2003. Further, the Court held that the proceedings in E.P.No.55 of 2006 were properly conducted and the revision petitioner purchased the property on 30.10.2007 in the Court auction. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.191 of 2007, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein preferred appeal A.S.No.4 of 2020 on the file of the Principal VS,J crp_2778_2023 5 District Judge, Nellore. As there was no stay in the said appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, E.A.No.285 of 2008 in E.P.No.55 of 2006 was filed by them seeking to set aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.55 of 2006 on 30.10.2007 and after hearing both parties, the Court dismissed the E.A.No.285 of 2008 on 13.12.2021. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, after hearing both parties, allowed the said C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 setting aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.55 of 2006 dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the auction purchaser filed the present revision. 5) When the present revision came up for admission on 27.11.2023, this Court has passed the following interim order. “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the submissions made, there shall be interim stay, as prayed for, for a period of three (3) weeks.” 6) The said interim order has been extended from time to time. 7) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner purchased the property in the auction conducted by the Court on 30.10.2007, as such he is a bonafide purchaser and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have no title as held by the Trial Court in O.S.No.191 of 2007 and the First Appellate Court in AS.No.04 of 2020. Further, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the Will is not genuine and the alleged redemption of mortgage is VS,J crp_2778_2023 6 forged. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot challenge the execution, decree or judicial sale under Order XXI Rules 90 and 91 of C.P.C. and requested to allow the revision. 8) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the order of the trial Court in all respects as the same was passed after considering the entire material on record and set aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.55 of 2006 dated 30.10.2007, which need not be interfered with by this Court, and requested to dismiss the revision. 9) In the present case, the revision petitioner purchased the property in the auction on 30.10.2007, which was conducted by the Court in E.P.No.55 of 2006 in pursuance of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.7 of 2003. Later, E.A.No.285 of 2008 in E.P.No.55 of 2006 in O.S.No.7 of 2003 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to set aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.55 of 2006 on 30.10.2007, but the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, they have preferred C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore. After consideration of arguments of both the counsel, the C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 was allowed setting aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.55 of 2006 dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 10) Simultaneously, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed O.S.No.191 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali to declare the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2003 in O.S.No.7 of VS,J crp_2778_2023 7 2003 as null and void. But the said O.S.No.191 of 2007 was dismissed vide orders 07.11.2019. 11) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein preferred appeal suit vide A.S.No.4 of 2020 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nellore against he decree and judgment dated 07.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.191 of 2007 and the said A.S.No.4 of 2020 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.09.2025 and produced copy of the same, which was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 12) On perusal of the copy of the judgment in A.S.No.04 of 2020, it is clear that the same was preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.191 of 2007, which was filed to declare the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2003 in O.S.No.07 of 2003 as null and void. The said O.S.No.07 of 2003 was decreed, and Execution Proceedings were also initiated vide E.P.No.55 of 2006 and the property was auctioned and the revision petitioner purchased the property in the Court auction conducted on 30.10.2007. However, the said O.S.No.191 of 2007, which was filed to declare the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2003 in O.S.No.07 of 2003 as null and void, was dismissed and further confirmed in A.S.No.04 of 2020 by holding that the Will dated 16.02.2000 is not believable. Against the said decree and judgment, no second appeal has been preferred. As such, the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.07 of 2003 attained finality. Therefore, the sale of property in the auction conducted by the Court on 30.10.2007 in pursuance of the VS,J crp_2778_2023 8 decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.07 of 2003 holds good and cannot be set aside. 13) In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the order of the trial Court is erroneous as it has failed to exercise discretion properly and such finding is liable to be set aside. 14) In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in C.M.A.No.15 of 2021 by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore. No costs. 15) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 20.11.2025 Ksp