T.R. Bheemasena Rao vs Fayaz Ahmed Khan

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

The petitioners are said to be the decree-holders in respect of certain immovable property and had sought execution of the same. It transpires that on an earlier occasion, several persons claiming to be the purchasers of the very property had filed objections to the execution under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ''CPC'', for brevity) and the executing court on that occasion had held an inquiry and found that the so-called sale deeds, on which the objectors were relying, were executed by a power of attorney holder, whose power of attorney had been withdrawn and revoked and therefore, the sale deeds could not have been validly executed and it would be for the objectors to file independent suits in respect of their claims after the present petitioner-decree-holders obtained the possession of the property and accordingly disposed of those applications. That order was passed in the year 2008. The decree holders are yet to obtain possession. In the meanwhile, the present respondents have now filed similar objections that they are purchasers under several sale deeds and that an inquiry should be conducted as to their right and title. The trial court having ordered inquiry, the petitioners are before this court.

By coincidence, the very power of attorney, which was relied upon on the earlier occasion by the several objectors is also the basis, on which the sale deeds are said to have been executed in favour of the present respondents. Since the executing court as well as the lower appellate, on the first occasion, had found that the power of attorney executed in favour of Anand Rao stood revoked and that he had no authority to act on behalf of the principal in executing the sale deeds, similar finding would necessarily follow against the present objectors.

Consequently, the court below was not justified in ordering an enquiry, which was a mere duplication of the earlier proceedings, which would squarely apply to these respondents as well. Therefore, in view of a finding already arrived at there is no necessity for an inquiry in holding that the sale deeds, under which the objectors were claiming, are doubtful, as the power of attorney had been revoked and the power of attorney holder was not in a position to execute any such sale deeds. This finding of fact being available on record, the executing court was not justified to order an inquiry.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the respondents to file independent suits in respect of their rights. The impugned order is set aside. The court below shall proceed in accordance with law insofar as the execution proceedings are concerned.