S. Janardhana Reddy vs K. Srinivas
2025 Latest Caselaw 4291 Tel

Telangana High Court

S. Janardhana Reddy vs K. Srinivas on 26 June, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


               APPEAL SUIT No.385 of 2007


JUDGMENT:

Challenging the order dated 23.08.2004 passed in

E.A.No.3 of 2004 in E.P.No.3 of 2003 in O.S.No.1 of 1999 by

the learned I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, the

present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claim

petitioner, Sarasanna Janardhan Reddy, filed an application

under Order XXI Rule 58(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code,

seeking release of a house property bearing No.1-1-

45/C/166, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Adilabad from

attachment in execution of a money decree obtained by the

decree holder, Katuri Srinivas, against the father of the

appellant, the judgment debtor (JD), Sarasanna Asha

Reddy. The appellant contended that the property was joint

family property, purchased by his grandfather, Linga Reddy,

using ancestral agricultural income, though it was

registered in the name of his father. He relied on receipts

and documents (Exs.A1 to A6) to support his claim,

SKS,J

including land records, housing board receipts, and the

employment details of his father.

3. The decree holder opposed the claim petition stating

that the petition was a collusive attempt between father and

son to obstruct execution. He contended that the property

was registered solely in the name of the judgment debtor,

and all payments to the Housing Board were made by him.

Notably, during earlier proceedings for attachment before

judgment, the Judgment Debtor himself had claimed the

property belonged to the Housing Board, not that it was

joint family property.

4. The trial Court after hearing both sides, vide order

dated 23.08.2004 dismissed the petition holding that

evidence of the appellant is insufficient and self-serving and

noted that while the appellant claimed the property was

purchased with ancestral funds, he failed to produce any

concrete evidence showing that the income from agricultural

lands was used for the purchase. The documents showed

that the application and payments to the Housing Board

were made by the Judgment Debtor himself. Moreover, the

SKS,J

appellant admitted in cross-examination that his father had

two brothers, yet there was no claim or evidence from them

regarding joint ownership. The trial Court also observed that

if the property were truly joint family property, the

Judgment Debtor would have asserted that in the earlier

attachment proceedings, which he did not. It further held

that the property was the self-acquired asset of the

Judgment Debtor and not joint family property and allowed

the execution to proceed for realization of the decretal

amount of Rs.8,60,561/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present

appeal suit is filed.

5. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri S.

Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

impugned order is legally unsustainable and factually

perverse, having been passed without proper appreciation of

the oral and documentary evidence on record and that the

appellant had examined himself as PW.1 and produced

SKS,J

Exs.A1 to A6 to substantiate his claim that the property

under attachment was joint family property, acquired by his

grandfather, Linga Reddy, through ancestral income. He

further submitted that that the initial application and

payments to the A.P. Housing Board were made by the

grandfather, including the initial deposit of Rs.100/- in the

year 1978 and a further payment of Rs.4,220/- in the year

1982, with subsequent installments paid by the joint family

till the demise of his grandfather in the year 1993.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted

that the father of the appellant, i.e., respondent No. 2,

joined Government service only in the year 1983 and was

drawing a meager salary of Rs.292/- per month, thereby

lacking the financial capacity to acquire the property

independently. He contended that the trial Court failed to

consider the presumption of jointness under Hindu law and

overlooked the absence of any evidence indicating partition

or self-acquisition by respondent No.2. He further

contended that the trial Court erred in relying on the

judgment debtor's silence in earlier proceedings as

conclusive proof of sole ownership, without appreciating the

SKS,J

legal and factual matrix. The non-consideration of legal

submissions and case law cited by the appellant was also

highlighted as a serious irregularity. Therefore, he prayed

the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing

this appeal suit.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the property stands in the name

of respondent No.2 - the Judgment Debtor. On that basis,

the trial Court attached the said property prior to the

judgment. The property was allotted to the Judgment Debtor

by the A.P. Housing Board, and both the initial and

subsequent payments were made solely by him. He further

submitted that the Judgment Debtor never claimed that the

property was joint family property. Therefore, there is no

illegality in the order of the trial Court, and the Court has

rightly passed the impugned order, accordingly, prayed the

Court to dismiss the appeal.

9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal

are: