THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 500 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant/claim petitioner. I. Facts: 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff/decree holder and the 2nd respondent is the defendant/judgment debtor in O.S.No.42 of 2021 in the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which was decreed on 23.07.2022. The suit was instituted on 12.03.2021, for recovery of money based on two promissory notes. 3. The 1st respondent put the decree for execution in E.P.No.44 of 2023. 4. In the said E.P. the present appellant (claim petitioner) filed E.A….G.L.No.3138 dated 06.08.2025 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. The case of the claim petitioner was based on an unregistered non-possessory agreement with the judgment debtor, dated 03.10.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and paid Rs.75,00,000/- on 01.10.2022 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 12.01.2023 2 through RTGS with respect to the E.P. schedule property. He alleged collusion between respondents 1 and 2. 5. The application has been rejected by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, vide order dated 14.08.2025. 6. Challenging the said order/decree, the present appeal has been filed. II. Submissions of appellant’s counsel: 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the decree was a collusive decree between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent. The decree was ex parte. He submits that the question of the collusive nature of decree could be gone into in proceedings before the Execution Court but that plea has been illegally rejected. III. Point for determination: 8. The point which arise for our determination in this appeal is “whether the claim petitioner/appellant has any prima facie right, title or interest in the subject matter so as to resist the execution based on the unregistered non-possessory agreement dated 03.10.2022 which is of a date after the decree in favour of 1st respondent/decree holder?” 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 3 IV. Analysis: 10. Few dates deserve mention. The institution of the suit is on 12.03.2021. The decree was passed on 23.07.2022. The unregistered non-possessory agreement with the judgment debtor(2nd respondent) is dated 03.10.2022. Even the dates of alleged part payments are after the date of decree. 11. We are of the considered view that such an unregistered non- possessory agreement would not confer any right, title or interest, to the claim petitioner in E.P schedule property, to resist the execution. 12. On our specific query as to what right, title or interest, the claim petitioner has, even prima facie to object to the execution of the decree against the judgment debtor as also to raise the plea of collusiveness between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent based on the unregistered non-possessory agreement dated 03.10.2022, learned counsel submits that the question should have been gone into by the Execution Court and atleast the E.A. filed by the claim petitioner must have been registered. 13. We are not satisfied. Such application, on the face of it, did not require any registration of number. The learned Execution Court has rightly rejected the same. The learned Execution Court considered that application, and observed that, any agreement of sale 4 subsequent to the attachment shall not be valid and based on the unregistered document the claim petition would not be maintainable. We do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Execution Court particularly when the unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale is of a date after the decree passed in favour of the 1st respondent/decree holder. 14. On the point for determination, we hold that based on the unregistered non-possessory agreement of sale dated 03.10.2022, the appellant’s claim was unsustainable. 15. The appeal has got no force and deserves dismissal. VI. Result: 16. The Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that even after rejection of the application/claim petition, the claim petitioner, can maintain a suit. 18. Without observing anything on the aforesaid submission regarding maintainability of suit, it is open for the appellant to avail such other remedy as may be available under law against the 2nd respondent. 5 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 26.09.2025 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/o. Pab 6 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM + APPEAL SUIT NO.500/2025 % Dated: 26.09.2025 # Bandaru Suresh Babu ……Appellant And Vandlamuri Venkateswara Rao and another …….Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri P.Rajasekhar ^ Counsel for the Respondents : -- < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : IN THE HIGH COUR 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO.500/2025 Bandaru Suresh Babu ……Appellant And Vandlamuri Venkateswara Rao and another …….Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 26.09.2025 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. 3. Whether Their Lordship wishes Yes/No to see the fair copy of the Judgment? ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J 8