APHC010037142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the fifteenth day of September two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Civil Revision Petition Between: K. Rangaswamy Naidu, S/o. late K.Munirathnam, Age: 59 years, R/o. Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor district. and P. Vasusekhar, S/o.late P. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Age: 50 years, R/o. D. No.X-269-A, Kamma Chitoor district. Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Md. Saleem Counsel for the respondent: 1. Jitendra Kanyalur The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) the fifteenth day of September two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.247 of 2025 , S/o. late K.Munirathnam, Age: 59 years, R/o. Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor district. …Petitioner , S/o.late P. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Age: 50 years, A, Kamma Veedhi, Madanapalle Town and Post, …Respondent etitioner: espondent: The Court made the following: [3311] the fifteenth day of September two thousand and twenty six , S/o. late K.Munirathnam, Age: 59 years, R/o. Petitioner , S/o.late P. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Age: 50 years, Veedhi, Madanapalle Town and Post, Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 247 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order, dated 12.12.2024, allowing E.P. No. 14 of 2022 in O.S. No. 291 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor district, filed under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. seeking realization of the amount due under the decree, dated 07.02.2018, for an amount of Rs.3,86,095/- by arrest and detention of the J.Dr. in civil prison. 2. The D.Hr. contended that the J.Dr. is working as a Lecturer and also a partner in a junior college and is getting an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per month besides having his own house and landed property, but failed to discharge the decretal amount having sufficient means. 3. The J.Dr. opposed the petition mainly contending, by filing counter, that he had discharged the entire suit amount even prior to the institution of the legal proceeding and that he has no means or capacity to discharge the decretal debt. 4. On behalf of the D.Hr., P.W. 1 was examined and Ex.P1, certified copy of the registered sale deed, dt.14.02.2018, vide document No.1308 of 2018, was marked. On behalf of the J.Dr., RW1 was examined and no documents were marked. C.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.C1, certified copy of the registered sale deed dt.28.12.2023 (vide document No.11685 of 2023), was marked by the execution Court. 5. After considering the evidence of K. Varshita, who is the daughter of the J.Dr. and examined as C.W.1, and A. Tharakarama Naidu, who is the Principal of Narayana Junior College, Madanapalle, and examined 3 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 247 of 2025 as C.W.2, besides the evidence of D.Hr. and J.Dr., in the light of Exs.P1 and C1, the execution Court opined that the D.Hr. failed to prove that the house in the name of C.W.1 was purchased by J.Dr. with his funds and further that the J.Dr. is working as a lecturer. But, the execution Court found that the total amount of sale consideration under Ex.P1 / sale deed, dt.14.02.2018, was received by J.Dr. on different dates within two months before the date of the decree and one part of amount just after the decree, and moreover the J.Dr. is residing, as Manager / Kartha of the family, along with his son and daughter who are earning Rs.65,000/- each per month and thus the J.Dr., having sufficient means, failed to discharge the decree debt. The execution Court ordered warrant under Order XXI Rule 38 C.P.C. against the J.Dr. on payment of necessary process by the D.Hr. and posted the matter on 10.02.2025. 6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 7. On 07.02.2025, the previous Bench of this Court, granted interim order of stay of all further proceedings in the execution petition subject to the condition of the J.Dr. depositing Rs. 1,70,000/- to the respondent / D.Hr. either directly or under an acknowledgment to the credit of the E.P. before the Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. During the course of hearing the revision petition, it was represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the amount had been deposited on 09.04.2025 before the execution Court and consequently the execution Court closed the E.P. on 07.05.2025 granting liberty to the D.Hr. to seek reopening of the E.P. by filing appropriate memo subject to the result in the revision petition. 4 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 247 of 2025 9. The learned counsels for the parties argued the matter on the same lines as was argued before the execution Court. 10. To establish the means of J.Dr. through salary working as a lecturer, the D.Hr. got examined A. Tarakarama Naidu, Principal of Narayana Junior College, Madanapalle, as C.W.2. But, nothing could be elicited from his evidence in support of the stand of the D.Hr. The execution Court thoroughly considered the evidence and came to the same conclusion. There is no clearing pleading as to partnership of the J.Dr. in a college. 11. Since as on the date of filing the execution petition, Ex.C1 was not executed, there was no occasion to plead about it. Hence the D.Hr. got examined the daughter of the J.Dr. as CW1 and marked Ex.C.1, a registered sale deed, dt.28.12.2023, in her favour, contending that the J.Dr. purchased the property in her name as a benami. The execution Court discussed the evidence of C.W.1 and Ex.C1 well in detail and found that the D.Hr. could not prove the contention by failure to discharge heavy burden on him that the property purchased under Ex.C1 belongs to the J.Dr. 12. Except the oral evidence of C.W.1, there is no evidence placed by C.W.1 that she had completed B. Tech. in computers in the year 2021 and got job in the year 2021 at Carelon Global Solutions, Bengaluru, with a package of Rs. 4,25,000/- per annum. Thus, there is no credible evidence that she had independent income to purchase the property under Ex.P1. But, since the initial burden is on the D.Hr. to prove that it was not purchased with the income of C.W.1 but with the income of J.Dr., in the absence of cogent evidence, the execution Court rightly held that the D.Hr. failed to prove the contention in this regard. 5 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 247 of 2025 13. The D.Hr. filed Ex.P1, a registered sale deed dt.14.02.2018, executed by J.Dr. in favour of P.Sreenath Naidu in support of his contention that the J.Dr. had a property worth sufficient to discharge the decretal debt, but had sold it to avoid the liability to the creditor. 14. The J.Dr. admitted that he had a house property but the same had been sold away under Ex.P1. Ex.P1 shows that the property was sold on 14.02.2018 for an amount of Rs.31,20,000/-, whereas the decree in the suit was passed on 07.02.2018, however the J.Dr. argued that the entire amount of sale consideration was received well before the decree was passed and therefore, he had no sufficient means as on the date of the decree. In this regard, the execution Court rightly analyzed the evidence by recording that the J.Dr. had received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- earlier from the vendee and later Rs.10,56,514/- on 29.12.2017, Rs.1,50,000/- on 26.10.2017, Rs.4,00,000/- on 18.01.2018, Rs.6,00,000/- on 20.01.2018, Rs.4,00,000/- on 25.01.2018, Rs.3,38,466/- on 12.02.2018. In the light of such evidence, the execution Court observed that as per Ex.P1, the J.Dr. received the entire consideration except Rs.3,38,466/- hardly within two months from the date of the decree (i.e., 07.02.2018) and received the balance amount of Rs.3,38,466/- on 12.02.2018, i.e. within less than a week from the date of decree (07.02.2018), and that inspite of such amount available with him sufficient to pay off the substantial portion of the decretal debt of Rs.3,86,095/-, the J.Dr. failed to do so and had not pleaded that the amount of consideration received by him had been spent away. Thus, the execution Court disbelieved the version of the J.Dr. that he had no means or capacity to discharge the decretal debt. As can be seen from the evidence, he has been living with both his children who are earning sufficient amount for their living and J.Dr. had 6 BSB, J C.R.P. No. 247 of 2025 not pleaded that he has any other obligations or that he had spent away the amount of sale consideration received for any other obligations. 15. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the observations of the execution Court to allow the execution petition. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. 16. In the result the Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________ ___ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 15.09.2026 RAR