Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14425 (AP)

Anaparti Kaveri v. Annapareddi Mahalakshmi

CRP/219/2026 · 2026-03-02

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010006552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 219/2026 Between: 1. ANAPARTI KAVERI,, D/O. ANAPARTI DASTAGIRI, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 18-13-3, SRINIVASA NAGAR, CHIRALA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATLA DISTRICT-523155. 2. ANAPARTI RAJANI,, D/O. ANAPARTI DASTAGIRI, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.18-13-3, SRINIVASA NAGAR, CHIRALA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATIA DISTRICT-523155. 3. ANAPARTI KOMALI, , D/O. (LATE) ANAPARTI DASTAGIRI, AGED 17 YEARS, BEING MINOR. REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER SMT. NAGAMALLESWARI, R/O. D.NO. 18-13-3, SRINIVASA NAGAR, CHIRALA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATIA DISTRICT-523155. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ANNAPAREDDI MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE CHINA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.18-13-3, SRINIVASA NAGAR, CHIRALA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATIA DISTRICT- 523155 2. ANNAPARTI SIVAIAH ANAPARRU SIVAIAH, S/O. PEDA DASTAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.18-13-3, SRINIVASA NAGAR, CHIRALA MUNICIPALITY, BAPATIA DISTRICT-523155. ...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 2 pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the Docket order dated 24-11-2025 passed in EA (CFR.No.2704/2025) in EP.No.1 of 2024 in OS.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, and consequently direct the court below to register the said EA(CFR.No.2704/2025) in EP.No.1 of 2024 in OS.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, and adjudicate the same on its own merits, and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in EP.No.1 of 2024 in OS.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 219/2026 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 24.11.2025 passed in E.A (CFR.No.2704 of 2025) in E.P.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.104 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, hence notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with. 3. The petitioners herein are claimants, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.104 of 2014 against the 2nd respondent/defendant seeking for recovery of amount. The said suit was decreed on 08.07.2016. Therefore, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.58 of 2017 for execution of the judgment and decree. The said E.P. was dismissed for default on 08.08.2022. At any pint of time no steps were taken by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for restoration of the said E.P. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 1st respondent/plaintiff again filed E.P.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.104 of 2014 4 seeking attachment and sale of the E.P. schedule property by way of public auction. He further submits that the 2nd respondent/defendant relinquished his rights over the E.P. schedule property in favour of the petitioners vide relinquishment deed dated 31.01.2025. Since then, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the E.P. Schedule property. Then, the petitioners came to know about the E.P. filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and filed an application i.e, E.A (CFR.No.2704 of 2025) in E.P.No.1 of 2024 seeking to declare that the E.P is not executable and raise the attachment of the petition schedule property. But, without considering the said application on merits, the Execution Court erroneously rejected the E.A (CFR.No.2704 of 2025). Hence, the Revision Petition. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the trial Court passed judgment and decree on 08.07.2016 in O.S.No.104 of 2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.1 of 2024 on 12.12.2023. The E.P. schedule property was attached on 13.11.2024, whereas, the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the respondent No.2/defendant is on 31.01.2025. Moreover, the petitioners herein are none other than grand- daughters of respondent No.2/defendant. It clearly shows that respondent No.2/defendant intentionally executed the relinquishment deed in respect of the entire E.P. Schedule property to evade the execution of decree and judgment and amount payable to respondent No.1/plaintiff. It is settled law as per Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, once a property has 5 been attached in execution of a decree, transfer or delivery of that property by the judgment debtor is null and void and the alleged alienation of property by way of deed of relinquishment is contrary to law and not enforceable against the 1st respondent/plaintiff. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Execution Court rightly rejected the E.A (CFR.No.2704 of 2025) in E.P.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.104 of 2014. Therefore, the docket order of the Execution Court does not warrants any interference of this Court. 7. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to proceed further by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 03.03.2026 TPS 6 140 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 219/2026 03.03.2026 TPS