APHC010472272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL No: 55 of 2026 Between: 1. P SARAVANA MURTHY (DIED) 2. P.RAMADEVI, W/ OCC: HOUSE WIFE, 3. S.MARIYAMMA, W/ OCC: HOUSE WIFE, 4. S.SAHASRA CHANDAANA, D/ AGE 16 YEARS. 5. S.MEGA VARSHINI, D/ YEARS. (APPELLANT N /NATURAL GUARDIAN S.MARIYAMMA 3RD APPELLANT) (ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.2 NEAR LIC OFFICE, TIRUPATHI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT) 1. K VENKATESH, S/o AT PERUMALLA PALLE VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK SHAKIRA BI, W/ RESIDING AT 2- TIRUPATHI TOWN POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SECOND APPEAL No: 55 of 2026 P SARAVANA MURTHY (DIED) P.RAMADEVI, W/o.K.PANDURANGAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, S.MARIYAMMA, W/o LATE P.SARAVANA MURTHY, AGE36 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, S.SAHASRA CHANDAANA, D/o.LATE P.SARAVANA MURTHY, S.MEGA VARSHINI, D/o. LATE P.SARAVANA MURTHY, AGE 12 YEARS. (APPELLANT Nos. 4 & 5 ARE MINORS REP /NATURAL GUARDIAN S.MARIYAMMA 3RD APPELLANT) (ALL ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.2-3-388/6, NARASIMHA THEERTHAM ROAD, NEAR LIC OFFICE, TIRUPATHI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATHI ...APPELLANT(S) AND K VENKATESH, S/o. K.MUNASWAMY, AGE 56 YEARS, AT PERUMALLA PALLE VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. SHAIK SHAKIRA BI, W/o. LATE RASHEED, AGE 54 YEARS, -2-288/6, NARASIMHA THEERTHAM ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA PANDURANGAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, AGE36 YEARS, LATE P.SARAVANA MURTHY, LATE P.SARAVANA MURTHY, AGE 12 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY MOTHER /NATURAL GUARDIAN S.MARIYAMMA 3RD APPELLANT) (ALL ARE 388/6, NARASIMHA THEERTHAM ROAD, NEAR LIC OFFICE, TIRUPATHI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATHI ...APPELLANT(S) . K.MUNASWAMY, AGE 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERUMALLA PALLE VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI RURAL . LATE RASHEED, AGE 54 YEARS, 288/6, NARASIMHA THEERTHAM ROAD, TIRUPATHI TOWN POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 3. K HANUMANTHAIAH, S/o. K.KRISHNAIAH, AGE 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RESIDING AT D.NO.11-216, S.V.NAGAR, TIRUPATHI TOWN POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. Smt.R SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): -None- 3 The Court made the following Judgment: The present Second Appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.6.2025 in A.S.No.74 of 2018 of the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, confirming the orders dated 25.01.2018 in E.A.No.23 of 2016 in E.A.No.30 of 2014 in E.P.No.417 of 2005 in O.S.No.1304 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. 2. One Mr.P.Saravana Murthy / claim petitioner (herein after referred to as ‘claim petitioner’) filed the above said E.A.No.23 of 2016 under Order XXI, Rule 97 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure Code to declare his possessory rights over the suit schedule property by setting aside the order of the delivery of possession made in E.A.No.30 of 2014 in favour of the 3rd respondent herein / Auction Purchaser. The said E.A.No.23 of 2016 was dismissed, against which, he preferred A.S.No.74 of 2018. During the pendency of the said appeal, he died and his legal representatives i.e., the appellants 2 to 5 herein are added as appellants vide orders dated 14.03.2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022. The Appellate Court vide order impugned in the present Second Appeal, dismissed the Appeal Suit. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr.Nageswara Rao V., made submissions to impress upon the Court that both the Executing Court as also the 1st Appellate Court erred in not appreciating the case of the claim petitioner in the proper perspective and went wrong in rejecting the claim petition. He submits that the plaint schedule land belongs to the Government and DKT patta was granted in favour of the husband of the 2nd appellant, that 4 a Certificate of Enjoyment was issued in his favour and a RCC building was constructed thereon. He submits that the 1st respondent / decree holder in collusion with the 2nd respondent / J.Dr., brought the said property for auction on the basis of an ex parte decree. Referring to the substantial questions of Law formulated in the instant appeal, the learned counsel submits that in the light of the fraud played by the respondents 1 & 2, the auction of the subject matter property on the basis of a collusive decree is not sustainable and in that situation, the learned Executing Court can go beyond the decree, but the said aspect was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. He also contends that as the 3rd respondent / auction purchaser failed to take possession of the plaint schedule / auctioned property, within a period of one year from the issuance of the Sale Certificate, the claim of the auction purchaser is barred by limitation. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel in view of the substantial questions of Law seeks stay of all further proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made and gone through the order of the Executing Court as also the order of the Appellate Court confirming the same. 5. On an appreciation of the matter, the point that arises for consideration is : Whether the instant appeal deserves admission on the premise that substantial questions of Law are involved? 5 6. Before answering the point for consideration, it may be pertinent to mention that to the claim petition in E.A.No.23 of 2016, wherein allegations of collusion etc., were pleaded, the auction purchaser filed a counter inter alia to the effect that the claim petitioner earlier filed E.A.No.101 of 2010 in E.P.No.417 of 2005 seeking the same relief and the said E.A., which was dismissed, had attained finality. While contending that the E.A., in question was filed with a view to protract the litigation, that there are no bona fides and only with a view to harass the auction purchaser, dismissal of the same was sought. The learned Executing Court, while noting the aspect of dismissal of E.A.No.101 of 2010 vide Orders dated 18.10.2012 (Ex.R.3) which remained unchallenged and further that though the claim petitioner knows about the attachment of the property in the year 2003 itself, filed E.A., in question after a long lapse of 13 years, beyond limitation, dismissed the E.A. The learned Executing Court, insofar as the Enjoyment Certificate is concerned, held that the same do not confer any right or exclusive possession over the property, that it cannot go behind the decree, which has attained finality in Law and opined that the endeavour of the Executing Court must be to execute decree and to resolve all the conflicts with all such available aids. 7. In the appeal, as noted earlier, the Appellate Court, confirmed the order of the Executing Court. Similar contentions as advanced before the Executing Court were raised before the Appellate Court, which after formulating the points for determination, was not inclined to interfere in the matter. The learned Appellate Court, inter alia, after discussing the oral and documentary 6 evidence and appreciating the contention to the effect that earlier application i.e., E.A.No.101 of 2010 was dismissed, that the order had attained finality as no revision was filed and the second petition for the same relief is hit by principle of constructive res judicata, dismissed the appeal. It had also placed reliance on the decision in M.Padma and Others v. M.Seshagiri Rao and Others1, wherein, a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inter alia, held that a person whose claim under Rule 58 Order 21 of C.P.C., was dismissed, cannot again reagitate the same by filing a petition under Rule 97 of Order 21 of C.P.C. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants had neither disputed the above stated legal position nor the fact that seeking the very same relief E.A.No.23 of 2016 was filed after dismissal of the earlier application i.e., E.A.No.101 of 2010. The application in question was filed though the Enjoyment Certificate does not confer any title in respect of a property. As rightly held by the learned Executing Court, the judgment and decree in the suit has become final and the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, unless the judgment delivered by a Court is declared as nullity. 9. In the present case, in the claim petition, except raising a plea of collusion, which was already negatived in E.A.No.101 of 2010, no steps appears to have been taken by the claim petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 (5) of C.P.C., after dismissal of earlier E.A.No.101 of 2010 filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C., which deals with 1) Adjudication of claims to, or objections 1 2003 (5) ALD 3 7 to attachment of property. For ready reference, the provision, which is relevant in the present context, is extracted hereunder: Order XXI, R.58 (5) - Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (1), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, an order so refusing to entertain the claims or objection shall be conclusive. 10. On an appreciation of the matter, this Court, in the light of the judgment referred to supra and the relevant provisions of Law, see no reason to interfere with the orders under appeal, much less on the premise that substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal. Point is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, as there are no substantial questions of Law. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 30.01.2026 BLV 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA S.A. No: 55 of 2026 Date: 30.01.2026 BLV