1 APHC010139062026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI APPEAL SUIT NO: 195/2026 Between: 1. T R RANJITH KUMAR, S/O. T N RAMESH BABU, AGED 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURE AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O. D NO. 28-19, KOTHA INDLU, PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DISTRICT 1. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SMT M CHANDRAVATHAMMA, W/O. M BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. T RAMESH BABU, S/O. LATE THUNGA NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D NO. 27-55-7, GOKUL VEEDHI, PUNGANUR POST AND TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 3. T R VINOD KUMAR, S/O. T N RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE D NO. 27-55-7, GOKUL VEEDHI, PUNGANUR POST AND TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. 4. T R KALYAN, S/O. T N RAMESH BABU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. UNEMPLOYEE D NO. 27-55-7, GOKUL VEEDHI, PUNGANUR POST 2 AND TOWN, CHITTOOR DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI APPEAL SUIT No.195 of 2026 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Y.Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the claimant in proceedings under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. in E.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.E.P.No.2 of 2018 in O.S.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 3. The aforesaid O.S.No.12 of 2011 was filed by the 1st respondent, in which the decree was passed against the 2nd respondent herein, who is the judgment debtor on 19.06.2017. The appellant/claimant as also the rest of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of respondent No.2/Judgement Debtor. 4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff/decree holder filed OEP No.2 of 2018 as aforesaid for execution of the decree against the 2nd respondent. 4 5. The present appellant/claimant filed the claim petition in E.A.No.2 of 2024 in the O.E.P claiming 1/4th share in the E.P. schedule property. The claim of the appellant herein was that the plaint schedule property in O.S. with respect to which the suit for specific performance of contract was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/decree holder against the judgment debtor, was coparcenery for which execution could not be made for that property as the claim petitioner had 1/4th share therein. In support of his case of 1/4th share, the further case of the claim petitioner was that he had filed O.S.No.43 of 2021 against the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as also the wife of the 2nd respondent (the mother of the claimant), who died during pendency of that suit, and in the said suit for partition, a preliminary decree dated 01.07.2022 was passed in favour of the claimant/appellant declaring the share of the claimant as 1/4th. 6. The learned VII Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dismissed E.A.No.2 of 2024. 7. The learned VII Additional District Judge considered the claim petition and rejected the petition inter alia on the ground that no claim petition was maintainable under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C 5 unless there was an attachment of the property in execution of a decree. The claim petition was dismissed as not maintainable. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. may not be attracted but the objections under claim petition, could be considered as under Order XXI Rule 101 C.P.C and consequently, the claim petition was maintainable. 9. The following point arises for consideration in the present appeal: “Whether the order under challenge suffers from any illegality or error of law either on fact or law?” 10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 11. The learned VII Additional District Judge, also observed further that even if the claim petition was considered under Section 47 C.P.C as an objection in the Execution Case, then also no reliance could be placed on that decree in the partition suit filed by the claimants. No evidence was lead by the defendants therein (father and the siblings of the claimant) and that was decreed ex parte. So, there was no crucial material to support the contents of 6 the claim petitioner of his alleged 1/4th share. Further, no final decree proceedings were initiated in O.S.No.43 of 2021. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the decree being ex parte, and without leading of evidence by the father of the claim petitioner in the suit for partition filed by the claim petitioner. 13. On a specific query made if the decree holder of O.S.No.12 of 2011 (1st respondent herein) was made party in O.S.No.43 of 2021, he submitted that he (1st respondent) was not a party. 14. It could also not be disputed that though in O.S.No.43 of 2021, a preliminary decree was passed on 01.07.2022, no proceedings for final decree were initiated for partition by metes and bounds. 15. We are of the view that even if the claim petitioner’s objections be referable to Order XXI Rule 101 C.P.C, it cannot be contended that his claim has not been considered on merits. 16. The learned VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle has considered the basis of the claim i.e. the decree passed in the subsequent suit filed by the claimant subsequent to the suit filed by 7 the 1st respondent herein. Even the suit itself was filed much after the decree passed in O.S.No.12 of 2011 which was decreed on 17.06.2017, which decree attained finality against the judgment debtor (father of the claim petitioner). That was the only basis of the claim of the claim petitioner. No evidence was led by the claim petitioner in E.A.No.2 of 2024, not even the judgment/decree passed in O.S.No.43 of 2021 was filed as is evident from “Appendix of Evidence - Nil” and “Documents Marked – Nil”, in the impugned judgment. 17. We are of the view that the decree in partition suit, besides being ex parte, no further action was taken based on preliminary decree. The decree holder of the first suit in O.S.No.12 of 2011, between plaintiff/decree holder (1st respondent) and the father of the present claimant, was also not a party in the suit for partition. The subsequent decree declaring the share ex parte of the claim petitioner as 1/4th would not be binding on the plaintiff/decree holder of O.S.No.12 of 2011. Consequently, no case for interference is made out in the impugned judgment/decree of the learned Trial Court. 8 18. The Appeal Suit is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J Date: 17.04.2026. Pab