I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY MAY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA CLVIL REVISIOM REDDY SATTI 244OF2025 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution by the docket order dated 03. 2021 in O.S.No. 261 of 2010 (Senior Division), Srikakulam. Between: Korada Ramprasad, S/o Late Korada Residing at 4th Floor, Plot No.407 bazar Road, Srikakulam Town of India is filed being aggrieved 10.2024 in EA.No.56 of 2022 in E.P.No.20 of on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil judge Vasudevarao, Aged about 64 Tirumala Srinivasa Apartment, and District. years, Chinna ...PETITIONER AND . Appalasuryanarayana, Aged 68 years 2 Mandal and District. 2. Smt Korada Lakshmikantamma, (died). 3. Korada Ramanamurthy, S/o Late 1- Potnuru Thavitiraju, S/o Late Korada vasudevarao. Aged about 62 years. Residing at Subhodaya Residency Electrical Office, G.T Road and Function Hall, Opp Srikakulam Town and District. 4. Korada Nagaraju, S/o Late Korada Residing at Subhodaya Residency Office, G.T Road, Srikakulam Town 5. Andhavarapu Bharathi, (died). 6. Boyina vimal Kumari @ Hemakumari, 58 years. Housewife, Residing at Plot Srikakulam Town and District. vasudevarao. Aged about 54 and Function Hall, Opp Electrical and District. years. W/o Someswararao, Aged about No.3, Janakiramnagar Colony, 7. Baratam Anitha, W/o Baratam Srikanth, Aged about 56 years. Housewife, Residing at Rajugari Street, C/o Baratam Shopping Mall, •Parlakhemundl Town and Gajapathi District, Odisha State. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 20 of 2021 in O.S.No. 261 of 2010 in the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Srikakulam. Counsel for the Petitioner:M/s T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV The Court made the following: ORDER 4 APHC010044072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 244/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Korada Ramprasad AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Potnuru Thavitiraju and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TVSRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV The Court made the following: ORDER being the plaintiff, filed suit Respondent No.1 in this revision O.S.No.261 of 2010 against one Korada Lakshmikantamma, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 09.09.2009. The sole defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. The suit was decreed on 03.02.2017. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant filed A.S.No.73 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam and the said appeal was dismissed on 19.07.2019. Thereafter, the 2. -4 JRS]J ■ C.R.P.No.244 of 202b decree holder filed E.P.No.20 of 2021 under Order XXI Rules 32 and 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'). As seen from the averments in said E.P. no second appeal has been filed. 3. Pending the E.P., the sole defendant/judgment decree holder filed E.A.No.56 of 2022 undei> Section ; deceased's three sons and three daughters as legal heirs. died. Therefore, the 50 of CPC to bring the 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the plaintiff/decree holder deposited the balance sale consideration as per the decree and of Rs.3,23,360/-, by.way of a challan dated 10.03.2017, thereafter filed the execution petition. Due to covid-19, the execution petition was adjourned, from time to time, and posted to 08.10.2021. On that date, the came to know that the Judgment debtor died plaintiff/decree holder on 19.04.2021 and filed a memo to that effect. The executing court adjourned the matter to 25.10.2021 for taking steps. Hence, the petitioner filed E.A.No.56 of 2022 to implead three sons and three daughters of the deceased sole as judgment debtors 2 to 7. judgment debtor, being her legal representatives 5. Proposed respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.2 filed contended, inter alia, that the mother died deceased executed a Will a counter. It was on, 20.04.2021 testate. The on 08.04.2021, bequeathing the remaining property after acquisition by the Government for NH road, in favour of K. Srujith and K. Mounika in a sound disposing state of mind. Being the legatees, they proper and necessary parties. Three daughters and three deceased are not legal heirs and thus are sons of the prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The Executing Court, by order dated 03.10.2024 Aggrieved by the same, the above debtor No.2. allowed the petition, revision is filed by the proposed judgment 7. Heard Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel for respondent No.1. counsel for the petitioners and Sri ■ SRS,J C.R.P.No.244 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner and other proposed parties are not legal representatives of the deceased Section 2(11) of CPC. The deceased died testate, bequeathing the property to K. Srujith and K. Mounika by executing dated 08.04.2021. The said Srujith and Mounika are the proper parties to the execution petition. 8. as per on 20.04.2021, a Will 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the sole judgment debtor died pending the E.P. The scope of the petition filed by the decree holder is to get the document executed, and class-1 legal heirs of the deceased were sought to be impleaded. In fact, the Executing Court ordered the petition. He also would submit that the decree holder will take steps to implead the alleged legatees under the Will as party respondents, to avoid other future complications. 10. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Executing Court suffers from any illegality warranting interference of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 11. As per the facts narrated supra, there is no dispute regarding the passing of the decree, dismissal of the appeal, filing of the E.P. by the decree holder and the death of the sole judgment debtor, pending the E.P. 20.04.2021. on 12. Whether the alleged legatees are alone to be impleaded or the Class-1 heirs of the deceased are also necessary parties needs to be examined. 13. In this regard, it is appropriate to skim Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which envisages relief against the parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. Section 19(b) of the Act, which is relevant, is extracted herewith; 19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title.— SRS,J' C.R.P,No.244 of 2625 Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against— (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value v\/ho has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; 14. Thus, a plain reading of clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act would bespeak that the relief can be enforced against any other person, after the contract, claiming title through the same vendee. Section 2(11) of CPC defines “legal representative” as a person who, by law, represents the estate of a deceased person. The definition includes anyone who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. In a situation where a party sues or is sued, in a representative character, a person on whom the estate devolves upon the death of that party sues or is sued, is termed as the legal representative. As seen from .the record, by filing counter-affidavit, the elder son of the deceased contended that the deceased executed a Will bequeathing the property in favour of his son and daughter of his brother i.e. second son of the deceased. The alleged legatees have not come before the Executing Court. The father of one of the alleged legatees filed the counter affidavit pleaded about the Will. Except for the respective fathers of the alleged legatees, other class-1 heirs of the deceased remained ex parte. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 is needed is of no merit consideration, since there is no dispute among the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. 15. 16. and 17. SRS,J C.R.P.No.244 of 2025 vis-a-vis the claim i.e. property. The suit against the J.Dr. was already decreed, and E.P. for execution of the decree is pending. As seen from the counter affidavit, filed by the revision petitioner, his mother died on 20.04.2021 after executing the Will dated 08.04.2021, whereas, the decree was passed on 03.02.2017. The decree passed by the Court binds the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. In the facts of the case, since the alleged Will is executed after the decree, even the alleged legal representatives cannot obstruct the execution of a decree because of Rule 102 of Order XXI of CPC. As to who are the proper parties in the execution of a decree qua specific performance, was considered by the Apex Court in Lala Durga Prasad and Others v. Lala Deep Chand and Others\ observed as under. “42. In our opinion, the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in ‘him to the plaintiff. He does not join in any special covenants made between the plaintiff and his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title to the plaintiff. ...” The Hon’ble Apex Court Maharaj Singh and Others v. Karan Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others^, at para 246, while considering Section 19 of the Act, observed,as under: “24. In view of clause (b) of Section 19, the defendants who are claiming under the sale deeds executed after the execution of the suit agreement can be subjected to a decree of specific performance as the suit agreement can be enforced specifically against such defendants unless they are bona fide purchasers without the notice of the original contract. When, in a given case, the defendants, who are subsequent purchasers, fail to prove that they entered into the sale deed in good faith and without notice of the suit agreement, in view of Section 19(b), a decree for 18. 19. 20. 'AIR 1954 SC 75 ' 2024 (8) see 83 SRS,J C.R.P.|\Jo.244 of 2C25 specific performance can be passed •n such a case where Section specific performance, against such defendants. '19(b) is applicable, Therefore, under the decree of can be directed to along with the original vendor. There is no subsequent sale deeds. the subsequent purchasers execute the sale deed necessity to pray for the cancellation of the 21. Thus, to avoid complications and to decree passed in favour of the decree alleged legatees convey proper title because holder by the of the competent civil court, the Of CO being legal Of course, the Executing Court at that stage since there i Of the deceased. are also to be impleaded representatives of the deceased, decide the genuineness of the Will among the other legal heirs those parties should also Will not 's no dispute - litigation, Only to avoid future be added as party respondents. Though the. Executing Court while impleading class had not adverted -I heirs of the deceasprf irregularity or impropriety in the Hence, the to the above discussion, this Court does not find given the discussion any supra. order passed, gi revision is liable to be dismissed. 23. At the hearing, learned decree holder will file the aforementioned counsel for the decree holder another application to bring Will to avoid future litigation. submitted that the the alleged legatees under 24. If such an the same and application is filed pass appropriate orders. Given the above discussion the learned executing court shall consider 25. ’ Revision Petition i costs. IS dismissed. No As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. B CHITTI JOSEPH assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam 2. One CC to M/s. T V SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Advocate [OPUC] 4.Three CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.244 of 2025 f 30JUL2G25 ^ mntSactio se&is£ Co DISMISSING THE CRP