Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs Sathi Veerreddy E G Dist 4 Others And on 12 September, 2024
APHC010467112014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3101/2014
Between:
Nallamili Ammireddy, E.g.dist ...PETITIONER
AND
Sathi Veerreddy E G Dist 4 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S SRIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.3101 of 2014
O R D E R:
The present revision is filed against the order dated
31.07.2014 in E.P.No.63 of 2012 in O.S.229 of 2007 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari
District.
2. The Petitioner is the 5th respondent in E.P. Respondent
No.1 is the decree holder in O.S.No.229 of 2007. The suit was
filed against Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for recovery of amounts.
The E.P was filed for sale of schedule property which was
transferred in favour of the petitioner by Respondent
No.4/Judgment debtor No.3 under Gift settlement deed on
05.11.2007 and that the Petitioner is liable to discharge the
debt as a universal donee.
3. Respondent No.4/Judgment debtor No.3 remained ex
parte and the petitioner filed counter stating that as the
alienation was much prior to the suit and the decree holder is
deemed to have knowledge of such transfer, but had failed to
implead petitioner in the attachment application or in the suit.
Therefore, E.P cannot proceed against the petitioner.
4. The trial Court upon perusal of Section 128 of the
Transfer of Property Act and by relying on the law laid down in
Lingareddi Sreenivasulu Reddy (died) and others v.
D.Maniratnam Reddi and others1 and Mulla Abdul Gaffur v.
Yeddula Narasimha Reddy2 allowed the E.P and held that
there is no impediment to proceed against the property of the
petitioner, being the universal donee, he is liable for the
liabilities of the donor. Hence, the present revision.
5. Heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the
respondents.
6. The primary objection of the petitioner is that, since the
property was transferred prior to the institution of the suit and
without there being a decree against him, the property cannot
be sold in auction for realisation of a decretal amount.
1977 1 ALT 790
2023 (2) ALT 795
7. This objection of the petitioner was considered by this
Court speaking through Justice S.H.Sheth in Linga Reddi
Sreenivasula Reddi v. D.Muniratnam Reddi3. The relevant
portion of the Judgment is at paragraph 10 thereof and is
extracted for ready reference;
"10. ...On persuing the reasoning given in the two
decisions to which I have referred, I am in agreement
with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of
Madras High Court. Therefore, the properties of the
second defendant in the hands of the plaintiff could be
proceeded against by the first defendant even though
the plaintiff was not a party to the suit.
8. Therefore, the objection of the petitioner is rejected. The
civil revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000/-. As
decree is of the year 2011, the Executing Court shall proceed
with the execution without further delay by adhering to the time
limit of six months fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S.
Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi4.
AIR 1978 AP 173= 1978 (1)ALT 790
(2021) 6 SCC 418
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 12.09.2024
KLP
