IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KADAPA

E.P. NO: 103/2017

O.S: 441/2015
C.Raghava Reddy … Petitioner/D.Hr

VS.

V.Nagasubba Reddy …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 realization 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

VS.

V.Nagasubba Reddy

…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