In The Court Princ Senior Civil Judge Kadapa

 

 

IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KADAPA

E.P. NO: 103/2017 O.S: 441/2015 C.Raghava Reddy

… Petitioner/D.Hr Petitioner/D.Hr VS.

V.Nagasubba Reddy

…Respondent/J.Dr …Respondent /J.Dr Counter filed on behalf of the Respondent

1. This E.P in unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts. 2. The Petitioner is to be put to strict proofs on all the allegations made in the Petition which are not expressly admitted here in by this respondent. 3. The Petitioner filed this E.P against the respondent for realizatio realization n of

RS:

5, 46,413/-by selling the schedule mentioned property. The petitioner is not entitled to sell this E.P schedule property items 1 to 3 since that property is not liable for sale for the realizing E.P amount due to encumbrances over that property. 4. The E.P schedule item NO: 1 does not belong to the respondent and that the respondent is nothing to do with item NO: 1 property. Smt.Varanasi Devi purchased item NO: 1 property on 27-12-2007 for RS: 57,000/- from Rachapalli Narayana Reddy under registered sale deed 849/2007 dated 27-12-2007. That Varanasi Devi mortgaged item NO: 1 property to state Bank of India Yarramukka palli branch kadapa city during 2013 and borrowed RS: 30, 00,000/- for construction of building of ground floor and 3 floors for public school purpose. So the Petitioner cannot sell item NO:1 property of Varanasi Devi for realization of his E.P amount. 5. The E.P schedule items 2 and 3 are mortgaged by the respondent to Sreerama finance company Bhagyanagar colony Kadapa city and borrowed RS: 20, 00,000 from that finance company for running his private business. Now that finance company filed Arbitration case before Arbitrator at proddutur claiming RS: 28, 00,000/- from the respondent. The attachment of items 2 and 3 by the Petitioner during 2015 year is not valid and binding since that property was already mortgaged to Sreerama finance company private L.T.D. during 2013 year. The E.P schedule items 2 and 3 are encumbered by registered mortgage deed of 2013 year. So the petitioners have no right or authority to sell E.P schedule items 1 to 3 for realization of his E.P amount. 6. The respondent filed I.P 14/2016 in Additional Senior civil judge court at kadapa by showing the name of the petitioner and E.P 103/2017 amount. The petitioner received court notice and engaged his advocate and contesting the I.P 14/2016 of the respondent.

 

7. The petitioner cannot sell E.P items 2 and 3 without redeeming the mortgage amount of RS: 28, 00,000/- payable to Sreerama finance company private limited. The Official Receiver of kadapa has to administer the E.P schedule property items 2 and 3 for distribution of rate able amount to the creditors as per law. 8. PRAYER: Therefore the respondent prays that the Honourable court may be

pleased to dismiss this EP: 103/2017 in the interests of Justice.

The above stated facts are verified and those facts are true and correct and signed this at kadapa on

-10-2017

Advocate for the Respondent List of documents filed:-

1.Copy of sale deed no 849/2007 dated 27-12-2007 executed in favor Smt.Varanasi Devi by Rachapalli Narayana Reddy for E.P schedule item NO:1 property.

Advocate for the Respondent

 

IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KADAPA

E.P. NO: 103/2017 O.S: 441/2015 C.Raghava Reddy … Petitioner/D.Hr  Petitioner/D.Hr  VS. V.Nagasubba Reddy …Respondent/J.Dr   …Respondent/J.Dr

Counter filed on behalf of the espondent

FILED BY:SRI.K. VENKATA REDDY, B.Com. B.L.,

Advocate for the Respondent KADAPA