claim petition to raise attachment basing on agreement of sale = the alleged agreement of sale between the petitioner and the 2ndrespondent is a collusive document brought into existence after the schedule property was attached to defeat his claim = The petitioner who is examined as PW 1 in his evidence has stated that he shifted his family to Hyderabad in the year 2008 and purchased the schedule property four years prior to shifting of his residence to Hyderabad. But in the petition, he stated that he purchased the property on 10-02-2010 from the 2nd respondent. PW 3 stated that the husband of the 2ndrespondent brought him to the Court to give evidence and that he signed on the affidavit at the request of the husband of the 2ndrespondent. PW 4 has deposed the schedule property was delivered to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in his presence but it is the case of the petitioner that un-possessory agreement of sale was executed by the 2nd respondent in his favour. In the circumstances, the lower Court rightly dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged agreement of sale and, therefore, he is not entitled to raise the attachment existing against the schedule property


                        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

                         

                        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 130 OF 2013

 

ORDER:


The petitioner filed the present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC aggrieved by order dated 16-10-2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada in E.A No. 69 of 2011 in E.P No. 26 of 2010 in O.S No. 297 of 2006.

The petitioner stated that he purchased the petition schedule property of an extent of Ac.1.75 cents situated in R.S No.35/3C of Gurivindagunta Village from the 2nd respondent – judgment debtor on 10-02-2010 under a non-promissory agreement of sale for Rs.5,69,000/- and that he paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards advance sale consideration and no time limit was fixed for payment of the balance consideration of Rs.1,19,000/-.  The 2nd respondent agreed to execute a registered document after receiving the balance of sale consideration and put the petitioner in possession of the schedule property.  Subsequently the petitioner went to Hyderabad for doing electrical contract works.  He used to demand the 2nd petitioner to execute the registered sale deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration and the 2nd respondent postponed the same on one pretext or the other.  
It is the case of the petitioner that in the third week of January, 2011 he came to know that the schedule property was attached in execution of a decree obtained by the 1strespondent against the 2nd respondent and the same was brought for sale.  
The petitioner states that there is collusion between the respondents in bringing the schedule property to sale to defeat his right over the same and that he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the 1st respondent so as to obtain a regular sale deed.  
Hence, he filed the EA before the lower Court praying to declare that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property and to raise attachment in respect thereof.

The 1st respondent alone contested the matter stating that the alleged agreement of sale between the petitioner and the 2ndrespondent is a collusive document brought into existence after the schedule property was attached to defeat his claim and that the petitioner has no capacity to purchase the schedule property. 

The lower Court after examining PWs 1 to 4 on behalf of the petitioner and RW 1 on behalf of the 1st respondent and after perusing the record dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.  Hence the revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner who is examined as PW 1 in his evidence has stated that he shifted his family to Hyderabad in the year 2008 and purchased the schedule property four years prior to shifting of his residence to Hyderabad. But in the petition, he stated that he purchased the property on 10-02-2010 from the 2nd respondent.  
Further, though he claimed that he obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Urban Bank of Gudivada for paying part of sale consideration, he did not file any document to show that he had obtained any loan.  The petitioner also stated that he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from two persons, but he did not choose to examine them.  
PW 3 stated that the husband of the 2ndrespondent brought him to the Court to give evidence and that he signed on the affidavit at the request of the husband of the 2ndrespondent.  
PW 4 has deposed the schedule property was delivered to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in his presence but it is the case of the petitioner that un-possessory agreement of sale was executed by the 2nd respondent in his favour.
In the circumstances, the lower Court rightly dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged agreement of sale and, therefore, he is not entitled to raise the attachment existing against the schedule property
I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court.  The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.

               N.V. RAMANA, J

24-01-2013
ks

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

                         

                        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 130 OF 2013

                         

                        Dated: 24-01-2013

                         

Between:

Abdyl Vazen
... PETITIONER
              AND

                         

Polvarapu Jagan Mohan Rao and another
... RESPONDENTS

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515