APHC010565792018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4837/2018 Between: 1. MADDALI HARANADHA REDDY, S/O. DAYAKAR REDY, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O. KONDLAPUDI VILLAGE, NELLORE RURAL MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ATTIPAT SESHAIAH, S/O. NARASA REDDY, AGED 60 YEARS, AGRICLUTRIST, R/O. PALLEMITTA, MULAPET, NELIORE - 2, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. PAMIDI RAVI, S/O. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. PALLEMITTA, MULAPET, NELLORE - 2, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. SETTIPALLI VENKATAIAH, S/O. CHIUNNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 6S YEARS, R/O. WARD NO.24, D.NO.641, MADIGAPALEM, BATWADIPALEM, MULAPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SETTIPALLI BRANCH, TIRUPATI - 6, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. PAMIDI SREENIVASULU, S/O. NARASAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC AGRICULRIST, R/O. KONETIMITTA, MULAPET, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. ATTIPATI RAJESHWARI, D/O.LATE A.SESHAIAH, R/O.D.NO.20/201, SHIVAJI COLONY, 9TH ROAD, MULAPET, NELLORE-2, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. CRP.No.4837 of 2018 7. ATTIPATI REVATHI, D/O.LATE AA.SESHAIAH, R/O.D.NO.20/201, SHIVAJI COLONY, 9TH ROAD, MULAPET, NELLORE-2, 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 toagainst the Order and Decree dated 02-05-2018 passed in EA.No.474 of 2004 in EP.No.37 of 1996 in OS.No.122 of 1985, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 herein from creating any third party interest over the petition schedule property in EA No.474 of 2004 in EP No.37 of 1996 in OS No.122 of 1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore by way of the sale lease, Mortgage etc pending disposal of the main of the main CRP and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 to permit the petitioner to serve the notice to the 2nd respondent in CRP.No. 4837 of 2018 by way of substituted service by publishing in the local news paper, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 implead the respondents proposed 6 and 7 herein as the respondents 6 and 7 being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent in the main CRP.No. 4837 of 2018., and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 condone the delay of 122 days in filing the Legal CRP.No.4837 of 2018 Representative Petition for the deceased 1st respondent in CRP.No. 4837 of 2018, and pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2021 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 be pleased to set aside the abetment caused due to none filing the legal representative petition for the deceased 1st respondent, within the period of limitation in the above CRP.No. 4837 of 2018, and pass such 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 time period for the execution of the warrant for a period of 2 Months i.e., March-April inpursuance of the Order, dated 27.12.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in C.R.No.4837 of 2018 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. V RAGHU 3. C SUBODH The Court made the following: CRP.No.4837 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4837 OF 2018 ORDER : 1. The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 02.05.2018 in E.A.No.474 of 2004 in E.P.No.37 of 1996 in T.O.S.No.122 of 1985 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the auction purchaser of an extent of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.285 of Pottepalem Village Nellore District. This property purchased by the Petitioner was shown as Item No.2 in the petition schedule property in E.P.No.37 of 1996. The auction was conducted on 12.07.2002 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the Petitioner on 24.10.2002. After confirmation of sale, a sale certificate dated 24.10.2002 was also issued in favour of the Petitioner. 3. When the Court Amin went to the E.P. schedule property with a warrant to deliver the same to the Petitioner, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 obstructed the Court Amin and informed that they are the owners of the E.P. schedule property and hence the warrant was returned unexecuted. 4. The admitted facts are that the E.P. the scheduled property originally belongs to one Lakshmi Bayamma and her sister CRP.No.4837 of 2018 Dwaraka Bayamma. A registered partition deed was executed among them on 14.07.1933 and the properties mentioned in the partition deed covered by Sy.No.285/A is an extent of Ac.2.16 cents and in Sy.No.286/1 of an extent of Ac.1.16 cents, totaling Ac.3.32 cents was divided amongst them. The ‘A’ schedule property of an extent of Ac.1.81 cents was allotted to Lakshmi Bayamma and Ac.1.65 cents was allotted to Dwarka Bayamma which was shown as ‘B’ schedule in the partition deed. Subsequently, the property changed hands. The contesting respondents claimed to have purchased the property through registered sale deeds dated 13.06.1977, 19.06.1981 and 08.07.1982 and they were not parties to the suit filed by the Bank for recovery of money. 5. It was also pleaded that they had filed O.S.No.2 of 2003 before I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore for a declaration that the decree in T.O.S.No.122 of 1985 and O.S.No.36 of 1986 is not binding on them, among other reliefs. The Trial Court, in the course of enquiry, appointed an Advocate Commissioner and in the work memo filed on behalf of petitioner/auction purchaser, the following was requested to be noted by the Advocate Commissioner: CRP.No.4837 of 2018 (1) To measure the actual extent of land available in S.Nos.285/1, 285/2 and 286/A of Pottepalem village within the boundaries mentioned in the petition schedule with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. (2) To measure the land in S. Nos.285/1 and 286/A of Pottepalem village which in occupation of Pamidipati Sreenivasulu [5th Respondent] (3) To measure the entire extent of land available in S. Nos.285, 285/1 and 286/A Pottepalem village. (4) To prepare a plan showing the extent of lands in occupation of 5th Respondent and remaining available with reference to measurements. 6. A work memo was filed by the contesting Respondent No.5 request the following: (1) The learned Commissioner is required to note whether the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Certificate of the 5th Respondent and the boundaries on land now measured are correct or not. (2) The learned Commissioner is requested to note the sub- divisions of Sy.Nos.285 and 286 in the land going to be measured.” CRP.No.4837 of 2018 7. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report without specifically adverting to the work memo of the petitioner. A reading of the report does not appear to be very satisfactory and the same was accepted by both the arguing counsel. However, the trial Court had relied on the Advocate Commissioner's report and dismissed the E.A. As the auction was conducted through the Court, the Court should own up responsibility as certain amount of sanctity is attached to Court sales atleast vis-a-vis the identity and location of the property that was auctioned through it. The Court should not have treated the E.A. as a case of rival claim and apply the usual burden of proof etc. 8. This Court has considered the submission of both the counsel that the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial Court is not satisfactory and instead of remanding the case at this length of time, thought it appropriate for this Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner as an interim measure to note down the extent of each survey number i.e Sy.Nos.285, 285/1 and 286/1 and the extent of land in actual possession of Respondents vis-a-vis the survey number, taking into consideration the registered partition deed dated 14.07.1933 and the subsequent sale deeds referred in the respective pleadings CRP.No.4837 of 2018 and the work memos filed by the Petitioner/auction purchaser as well as contesting Respondent. 9. This step was taken by this Court as the auction was conducted in the year 2002 and the auction purchaser is yet to know where he stands regarding the property purchased by him. 10. In pursuance of the said direction of this Court, the Advocate- Commissioner appointed by this Court has submitted his report, the report is prepared as directed by the Court has submitted a detailed report along with the copy of notices, work memo, documents and inspection report. The learned Advocate Commissioner also submitted the survey maps which are prepared by the Mandal Surveyor, Nellore Rural Mandal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the material on record and the report of Advocate Commission. 12. It is not disputed by either parties with regard to the extent of property which was purchased in the auction conducted by the Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased Ac.2.16 cents of land in Sy.No.285 which is arraigned as schedule property Item No.2 in EP.No.37 of 1996. The respondent CRP.No.4837 of 2018 purchased an extent of Ac.1.17 cents in Sy.No.286/A. The sale certificates were issued to both the parties by the Court. 13. The Court Amin had put the respondent in possession and when attempts to identify the petitioner’s property by the Court Amine there was an assistance from the other respondents. The trial Court in order to put a quietus to the dispute appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and to determine the extent of land in possession of the petitioner and the respondents. The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report. 14. This Court vide order dated 27.12.2024 appointed Sri.Raviteja Talaseela as an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the extent of each survey number i.e., Sy.No.285, 285/1 and 286/1 and the extent of land in actual possession of the respondents vis-à-vis the survey number duly taking into consideration the partition deed dated 14.07.1993 and subsequent sale deeds which are referred to in the pleadings. 15. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted a detailed report. The 5th respondent is found to be in possession of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.285/1 apart from Ac.0.61 cents in Sy.No.286/A. Thus, the 5th respondent is in possession of Ac.1.60 cents of land, CRP.No.4837 of 2018 whereas, the 5th respondent had purchased Ac.1.17 cents in apuction. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Hari Narain, Parameshwari Narain and Ram Narain all sons of late Jugal Kishore and Hari Krishna son of late Har narain Vs. Board of Revenue and Fazal Ahmad son of Mohd Ismail1, the Allahabad High Court held that once the auction purchaser paid the money and sale certificate is issued, it is the obligation of the Court to deliver possession of the property to the auction purchaser and if any clerical or mathematical error in the documents should be removed in the interest of justice. 17. The learned counsel for respondents place reliance on Y.Subba Rao (died on February 1983. He was the original plaintiff Decree Holder. He assigned the Decree in favour of Appellants 2 to 10 on 18 February, 1981. Appellants 2 to 10 claim through Y Subba Rao. His L Rs are not necessary to be brought on record). and others Vs. Azizunnisa Begu, W/o.Iftekharuddin Khan (died per LRs R-2 to R-6) and others2, this Court held that boundaries will prevail over the extent of land and also held that if a property is described by 1 2006 LawSuit (ALL) 1612 2 A A O No.531 of 83, dated 20.04.83 CRP.No.4837 of 2018 distinct boundaries which can be identified any mistake in survey number has to be ignored. 18. This Court in CRP.No.2977 of 2019 held that any inadvertence in not properly mentioning the boundaries of the land sold for which a sale certificate is issued without mentioning boundaries cannot deny the purchaser of the land the right and title over the said property. 19. The petitioner and the 5th respondent participated in the Court auction for two different extents of land in two different survey numbers and sale certificates were issued for the extent of land auctioned and purchased. The sale certificate issued to the petitioner does not mention the boundaries, however, it mentions the extent of land as Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.285. The sale certificate issued to the 5th respondent mentions boundaries for land admeasuring Ac.1.17 cents in Sy.No.286. 20. The 5th respondent cannot claim the right, title and interest over the extent of land in Sy.No.285 as he never bid for the same. So also, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title or interest over land in Sy.No.286. To ascertain the extent of land in possession of the parties the Advocate Commissioner’s report clarifies the issue beyond all reasonable doubts. The 5th respondent is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.1.60 cents of which Ac.0.99 CRP.No.4837 of 2018 cents of land in Sy.No.285/1 and Ac.0.61 cents of land in Sy.No.286/A. This amply clarifies that the 5th respondent is in possession of Ac.0.99 cents of land of the petitioner which ought to rightly be given possession to the petitioner. 21. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner and the 5th respondent have purchased the properties in a Court auction. In auctions conducted by the Court, the Courts have a greater responsibility, obligation and liability to deliver possession of the property which was sold by the Courts. 22. The petitioner was issued a sale certificate on 04.02.2003 without being able to enjoy the property purchased by the 22 years ago. The trial Court erred in denying the granting possession to the petitioner for the land purchased by him. The petitioner had to fight for possession of the property more than 22 years. The petitioner has been wrongfully denied possession of the property which was auctioned by the Court and it was established by the petitioner that the 5th respondent is in possession to an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.285/1 which ideally should be in possession of the petitioner. 23. On these considerations, the CRP is allowed order dated 02.05.2018 in E.A.No.474 of 2004 in E.P.No.37 of 1996 in T.O.S.No.122 of 1985 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore CRP.No.4837 of 2018 is hereby set aside. The Execution Court is hereby directed to deliver possession of land admeasuring Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.285/1 by duly taking into consideration the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 24.06.2025. The registry to forward the copy of Advocate Commissioner report along with annexure to the learned Executing Court for compliance of the orders of this Court. At any rate the learned Execution Court shall deliver possession to the petitioner the land admeasuring Ac.0.99 cents in Sy.No.285/1 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 24. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:09.10.2025 KGM CRP.No.4837 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4837 OF 2018 Date:09.10.2025 KGM