1. This memorandum of Family Court Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act assailing the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in E.A.No.6 of 2019 in E.P.No.4 of 2019 dated 12.03.2025 whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellant - petitioner is dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court grossly erred in dismissing E.A.No.6 of 2019 without taking into consideration the evidence adduced thereon and failed to consider the evidence of RW2 to RW4 wherein the sale transaction has taken place in their presence. The learned Family Court instead of appreciating and taking into consideration the judgment and decree in O.S.No.499 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not file copies of plaint and written statement. The learned Family Court has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant did not lead evidence in O.S.No.499 of 2019, but failed to appreciate the written statement filed by respondent No.2 who has admitted the sale transaction, did not consider the addendum to GPA wherein respondent No.2 has authorized his mother to enter into agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property and also failed to consider the contentions of respondent No.2 that a criminal case in C.C.No.3141 of 2022 was pending. He further submits that NBW and lookout circular was issued against respondent No.2 hence he could not travel to India and could not participate in the proceedings in O.S.No.499 of 2019. Respondent No.2 admitted that he sold out the petition schedule property to the appellant, the question of disbelieving the evidence of RW2 to RW4 does not arise. Learned Family Court failed to take into consideration that the appellant has filed E.P.No.9 of 2025 for execution of the sale deed. The findings of the learned Family Court in paragraph No.15 of the impugned order is unsustainable, contrary to the material on record and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – DHR submits that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the parties in right perspective, assigned cogent reasons in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant – third party and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - JDR has supported the case of the appellant – third party in all aspects.

5. For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in E.A.No.6 of 2019 as the petitioner – third party, respondent No.1- DHR and respondent No.2-JDR.

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order passed in E.A.No.6 of 2019 in E.P.No.4 of 2019 dated 12.03.2025 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it require interference of this Court.

Point:

7.1 Respondent No.1 – DHR has filed E.P.No.4 of 2019 on 07.03.2019 in FCOP.No.684 of 2014 for recovery of Rs.30,05,012/- which is granted by the learned Family Court towards permanent alimony to her vide order dated 11.09.2018 in FCOP.No.684 of 2014. The prayer in the EP is to attach the immovable property, to sell the same and pay the decreetal amount to respondent No.1 – DHR. The schedule property is House bearing No.8-6-67/55/116 in plot No.116 in survey No.57 part admeasuring 289 sq.yds with specific boundaries.

               7.2. Office note put up on 26.03.2019 in E.P.No.4 of 2019 shows that Rule 54 attachment was ordered along with notice to the respondent No.2 – JDR and EP was adjourned to 09.05.2019. Attachment was affected and notice to respondent No.2 – JDR is served on his father on 08.04.2019 at 10.00 a.m. The proceeding sheet dated 09.05.2019 states that attachment is effected.

8.1 Petitioner – third party has filed E.A.No.6 of 2019 in E.P.No.4 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w Section 151 of CPC on 20.08.2019 contending that E.P. is liable to be dismissed as respondent No.2 – judgment debtor has already sold the property to him.

               8.2 It is contended in the claim petition that respondent No.2 - JDR has acquired the schedule property from its earlier owner Smt.V.Anantha Laxmi by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.12771 of 2012 dated 15.10.2012. Respondent No.2 has given GPA to his mother vide file No.677/Val/2013 dated 11.12.2013. Respondent No.2 has requested his mother to sell the suit schedule property. Mother of the respondent No.2 has entered into oral agreement on behalf of her son on 01.03.2014 agreeing to sell the petition schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 – JDR promised to register the sale deed, as they did not come forward to do the same, petitioner – third party filed O.S.No.499 of 2019 for specific performance before the learned Principle District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner – third party is not liable to pay the debt and he recently came to know that the Court was pleased to order for the sale of petition schedule property on 20.08.2019 at the instance of respondent No.1-DHR.

9. Respondent No.1 – DHR filed her counter and contended that F.C.O.P. is filed by her for grant of divorce and permanent alimony. The learned Family Court has dissolved the marriage on 11.09.2018 and directed the respondent No.2 – JDR to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to her, as he failed to pay the same she filed E.P. for realization of amount. Petitioner – third party is not having any right over the petition schedule property by virtue of oral agreement dated 01.03.2014 which is created in collusion with each other and prayed to dismiss the same.

10. Respondent No.2 – JDR filed counter and contended that as on the date of agreement of sale there was no encumbrance on the property offered for sale and he admitted that the petitioner – third party has filed O.S.No.499 of 2019 for specific performance before the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar. Respondent No.1 – DHR is at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking enforcement of the decreetal amount upon an unencumbered property and the claim made by the petitioner – third party is genuine.

11. The learned family Court at first instance has allowed E.A.No.6 of 2019 vide order dated 17.03.2022 without taking evidence.

12. Respondent No.1 – DHR has challenged the order passed by the learned Family court in E.A.No.6 of 2019 in E.P.No.4 of 2019 in FCOP.No.684 of 2014 dated 17.03.2022 before this Court vide FCA.No.16 of 2023 which came to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Family Court on 17.03.2022 in E.A.No.6 of 2019 was set aside, the matter was remanded back to the learned Family Court to follow the procedure contemplated under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC.

13. After remand, petitioner – third party has examined himself has PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Respondent No.1 – DHR is examined as RW1. Respondent No.2 has got examined his father as RW2 – S.Bhaskar Raju, RW3 – T.Ramakrishna Rao, RW4 – Tati Srinivas Rao and got marked Ex.R1 - letter addressed by respondent No.2’s mother to the Deputy commissioner, L.B.Nagar Circle – 4 East Zone, GHMC Hyderabad dated 04.12.2024. Ex.R2 is marked in the cross examination of RW2.

14.1 Ex.P1 is the certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.499 of 2019 dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar wherein the suit is filed by the petitioner – third party against the respondent No.2 and his mother which came to be decreed in view of filing admitted written statement by the defendants therein.

               14.2 Ex.P2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No.12771/2012 dated 15.10.2012 in the name of respondent No.2.

               14.3 Ex.P3 is the original receipt of sale of house dated 01.03.2014 which shows that the petition schedule property is sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and that the petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration on the above said date.

15. Petitioner – third party has stated in his cross examination that registration of the schedule property covered under the suit in O.S.No.499 of 2019 is not yet completed in his favor, he has knowledge about the present E.P. and attachment of the E.P. schedule property which he is claiming. He has a sale agreement and GPA copy and Ex.P1 is obtained by him after the dismissal of stay petition dated 01.11.2023 in FCA.No.16 of 2023. He entered into agreement of sale with Smt.Renuka in the year 2014 and he paid the entire sale consideration in that year itself. There is no relationship between himself and S.Sharath Chandra Raju (respondent No.2 herein). Ex.P3 is not merely a receipt for sale of a house and that it is an agreement of sale, which is executed on a white paper. Respondent No.2 has authorized his mother to sell the scheduled property. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 is created after the suit scheduled property was attached by the Court in E.P.No.4 of 2019 and denied that he played fraud on the Court and obtained Ex.P1.

16.1 Ex.R1 is the letter addressed by Smt.Renuka to the Deputy Commissioner, LB Nagar Circle - 4, East Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad dated 04.12.2024 with a request to return the original notarized GPA dated 16.01.2023 as they have to submit the same in the Court in connection with a family dispute.

               16.2 Ex.R2 is the general power of attorney dated 16.01.2013 executed by respondent No.2 - JDR in favor of his mother S.Renuka. Ex.R2 does not authorize the mother of respondent No.2 – JDR to sell the schedule property.

17. The evidence of the respondent No.1 - DHR [RW1] is the same with that of her counter. In her cross examination she stated that respondent No.2 has been residing in USA and divorce is granted by American Family Court, she could not claim permanent alimony in that case as she did not stay there for 6 months which is mandatory for granting permanent alimony. She denied the suggestion that GPA is validated in India on 11.02.2013 and was given to the respondent No.2’s mother one year prior to filing divorce F.C.O.P.No.684 of 2014. She also denied the suggestion that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have colluded with each other and that the claim petitioner has right over the schedule property having obtained the decree being a purchaser for valuable sale consideration, she is giving false evidence.

18.1 RW2 - S.Bhaskar Raju is the father of the respondent No.2, he gave evidence as a general power of attorney holder. His evidence is supporting the case of the claim petitioner in toto.

               18.2 In the cross-examination done by the petitioner counsel he stated that Ex.P3 was executed on 01.03.2014 and the entire sale consideration was received by his wife under the instructions of his son - respondent No.2 and possession of the schedule property was delivered to the claim petitioner under Ex.P3.

               18.3 In the cross-examination done by respondent No.1 – DHR counsel he stated that the schedule property is house No.116 which is shown as his residence in his evidence affidavit. But it was a mistake. GPA is given by his son to his wife in respect of the property. There is no authorization to sell the house and receive the sale consideration and there are no signatures of the witnesses on that document (Ex.R2). Except him there are no other witnesses and he do not know whether addendum to GPA was not validated by paying a requisite stamp duty. His son could not execute and register the sale deed in favor of the claim petitioner since 2014 as he had some visa problems to come down to India. NBW is issued against his son in 498-A case filed by respondent No.1. He denied the suggestion that they have colluded with the claim petitioner to cause loss to respondent No.1 - DHR in getting the relief of permanent alimony.

19.1 RW3 - T.Ramakrishna Rao evidence is to the extent that mother of respondent No.2 has sold the schedule property to the claim petitioner for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- and executed receipt dated 01.03.2014 which is scribed by Srinivas Rao. Himself and S.Bhaskar Raju acted as attesting witness to the receipt executed by Smt. Renuka.

               19.2 In the cross-examination done by the petitioner counsel he stated that entire sale consideration was received by the mother of respondent No.2 under Ex.P3 under the instructions of respondent No.2 and possession of the property was delivered to the claim petitioner on 01.03.2014.

               19.3 In the cross examination done by respondent No.1 counsel he stated that Ex.P3 receipt was executed in the house of RW2 on 01.03.2014, he do not know Ex.P3 is not a receipt and that it is an agreement of sale. It is recorded in Ex.P3 that money is received by wife of RW2 and possession was delivered to the claim petitioner. The claim petitioner is not residing in the schedule property and he do not know whether he has leased out the same to the tenants. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 was brought into existence in collusion with the family of RW2 and that he is giving false evidence.

20.1 RW4 - T.Srinivas Rao evidence is the same with that of the evidence of RW3.

               20.2 In the cross-examination done by petitioner counsel he stated that Ex.P3 was executed on 01.03.2014 in his presence and entire sale consideration was received by the mother of respondent No.2, possession of the scheduled property was delivered to the claim petitioner under Ex.P3.

               20.3 In the cross-examination done by respondent No.1 counsel he stated that he has scribed Ex.P3 and he did not sign on the said document. Witness adds that he has written his name on it as a scribe. He knows RW2 for a long time. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P3 is created to stall the EP proceedings in collusion with RW2 and that he is giving false evidence.

21. Petitioner counsel has cross examined RW2 to RW4 wherein it is elicited from their cross examination that possession was delivered on the date of Ex.P3 i.e., 01.03.2014. On reading of Ex.P3 minutely there is no reference in the document that possession of the property is delivered to the claim petitioner.

22. It is interesting to note that RW2 has shown his residential address in the affidavit that he is residing at house No.116, Road No.6, Sri Srinivasa Puram Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. Ex.P3 speaks for itself that possession of the property is not delivered to the claim petitioner and furthermore RW3 has admitted in his cross examination that the claim petitioner is not residing in the schedule property.

23. Petitioner – third party has not placed any record to show that respondent No.2 – JDR has authorized his mother to sell the schedule property in his favor. Ex.R2 does not authorize the mother of respondent No.2 to alienate the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioner – third party. Though the petitioner has obtained judgment and decree in O.S.No.499 of 2019 dated 20.12.2013 under Ex.P1 but which is after the attachment of the petition schedule property in E.P. The learned Family Court has observed that the original addendum to GPA allegedly executed by respondent No.2 - JDR in favour of his mother has not seen the light of the day.

24. As stated supra petitioner has not produced any material to show that respondent No.2’s mother was authorized to sell the schedule property in his favor.

25. We are of the view that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner – third party by assigning cogent reasons. Appellant – petitioner – third party has not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Family Court. There are no merits in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Hence point is answered accordingly.

26. FCA.No.114 of 2025 is dismissed without cost.

Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous petition/s if any stands closed.