IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASVINA, 1931 EFA.No. 4 of 2002() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2001 IN EA. 76,37/98IN EP.61/82 IN OS.31/1968 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. V.S.ARUNKUMAR, S/O.SADANANDAN NAIR, AGED 30 YEARS "SOUPARNIKA", UDAYA GARDENS, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. V.S.ANITHA, D/O.SADANANDAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, "SOUPARNIKA", UDAYA GARDENS, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. S.ABHILASH, S/O.SADANANDAN NAIR, AGED 25 YEARS, "SOUPARNIKA", UDAYA GARDENS, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAVINDRANATHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN VAIDYAR, AG4D ABOUT 62 YEARS, MADATHIL VEEDU, KULATHOOR, KAZHAKUTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. * 2. R.CHANDRIKA, D/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KATTIKADA VEEDU, NEAR DAMODAR BROTHERS, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. B.PARAMESWARAN, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, KATTIKADA VEEDU, NEAR DAMODAR BROTHERS, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. EFA 4/02 -:2:- 4. R.VIJAYAN, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KATTIKADA VEEDU, NEAR DAMODAR BROTHERS, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. B.ASOKAN, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PANCHAVILA VEEDU, PEDIKATTU MURI, CHENIVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. * 6. B.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PANCHAVILA VEEDU, PEDIKATTU MURI, CHENIVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BHASKARA VILASAM, VELLAYANI NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 8. K.MUKUNDAN PILLAI, S/O.KUMARA KURUP, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NEYYASSERI VEEDU, KOLLUMURI, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 6 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 16-8-2007 IN I.A. 954/05. ADV. SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR and Adv. SRI.R.BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM) & SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R7 ADVS. M/S. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN , SANJANA R.NAIR MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI , SRI.JAYKAR.K.S., SRI.RAHUL VARMA SRI.V.S.ROBIN SR. ADVOCATE SRI.R.D.SHENOY,AND SMT.MEENA.A. FOR R1 THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, ALONG WITH EFA NO. 8 OF 2002 EFA NO. 10 OF 2002 EFA NO. 11 OF 2002 EFA NO. 12 OF 2002 EFA NO. 14 OF 2002 EFA NO. 18 OF 2002 EFA NO. 19 OF 2002 EFA NO. 20 OF 2002 EFA NO. 21 OF 2002 EFA NO. 22 OF 2002, EFA NO. 23 OF 2002 EFA NO. 24 OF 2002 EFA NO. 42 OF 2002 EFA NO. 43 OF 2002 EFA NO. 44 OF 2002 AND EFA NO. 45 OF 2002 THE COURT ON 01/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 01-10-2009 JUDGMENT In these appeals filed under Sec. 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 read with Order XXI Rule 103 C.P.C. the obstructors to a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale and for possession of two acres of land sold through the intervention of the Court, challenge the common order dated 14-9-2001 passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in E.A. Nos. 15 to 19 of 1987 and E.A. Nos. 37 to 40, 43, 44, 49 to 54, 56, 76 to 86 and 88 to 90 of 1998 in E.P. 61 of 1982 in O.S. No. 31 of 1968. As per the impugned common order the Executing Court dismissed the claim petitions filed by the appellants/obstructros and allowed the petitions for removal of obstructions filed by the plaintiff/decree holder. 2. I heard Adv. Sri.P. Gopakumaran Nair, Adv. Sri. N. Govindan Nair, Adv. Sri. Bharathan and Sr. Advocate Sri. Balakrishna Iyer appearing for the appellants and Sr. Advocate E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:2:- Sri. R.D. Shenoi representing the decree holder. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEALS 3. The learned Advocates appearing for the appellants made the following submissions in support of these appeals:- There is no dispute that Bhakara Pillai and his wife Rajamani Ammal who were the defendants in the present suit O.S. No. 31 of 1968 were the absolute owners of 4.5 acres of land at Cheruvaikkal Village. The agreement for sale executed by the aforesaid defendants in favour of the plaintiff (Raveendranath) pertained only to two acres of land. The said agreement for sale was dated 2-12-1964. Even prior to the said agreement for sale the defendants had entrusted 2 ½ acres of land with one Mukundan Pillai who was dependent on them and who was carrying out the agricultural operations in their properties. Two rent receipts marked as Exts.X1 (a) and X1 (b) dated 10-8-1963 and 8-8-1964 were also passed on by Bhaskara Pillai to Mukundan Pillai. It was a temporary arrangement and Bhaskara Pillai the first defendant never expected that E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:3:- Mukundan Pillai would betray the confidence reposed in him. It is true that when Mukundan Pillai filed Ext.X1 application dated 31-1-1979 before the Land Tribunal seeking assignment of the landlords' rights in respect of the 2 ½ acres of land alleging that the property was orally leased in his favour on 10-8-1962 and producing Ext.X1 (a) and X1 (b) rent receipts, the first defendant Bhaskara Pillai was in a tight corner. He had no other alternative except to concede the oral lease set up by his own worker Mukundan Pillai. When Bhaskara Pillai had no intention to disown the agreement for sale or deny the plaintiffs' right to have the sale deed executed and to be put in possession of the two acres of land, it was unnecessary for Bhaskara Pillai to plead the anterior oral lease in the written statement filed by him in the suit. It cannot, therefore, be held that Ext.B19 certificate of purchase dated 27-6-1979 obtained by Mukundan Pillai was by practicing fraud or collusion. The court below was not right in observing in paragraph 16 of the judgment that the transfer by way of lease was in favour of a fake person. Mukundan Pillai was not a fake person. Merely because Bhaskara Pillai's name was initially written in Ext.X6 lodgment E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:4:- schedule, it was erroneous on the part of the Court below in assuming that he was behind the sinister design to deprive the plaintiff the relief of specific performance prayed for in the suit. Bhakara Pillai's name, though initially written, was scored off and the name of Mukundan Pillai was added. It is true that Bhaskara Pillai who was the Ist respondent in the purchase application filed by Mukundan Pillai did not adduce evidence in support of the opposition made by him . But then, he would have been advised by his counsel that he, having parted with two rent receipts in favour of Mukundan Pillai, had no fair chance of success. It may be true that the conduct of Advocate Sreekumaran Nair who had subsequently purchased 45 cents from Mukundan Pillai might be unethical. But that does not in any way affect the validity of the oral lease. It is true that the lease of 2 ½ acres of land is not evidenced any registered document. But when the lease is oral, there is no need for a registered document. The need for a registered document will arise only if the lease has been reduced to writing. K.C. Itoop & Sons v. Antony - 1986 KLT 567 relied on by the Executing Court to discard the lease for want of a registered document, has E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:5:- been overruled by the Supreme Court in Antony v. Ittoop - 2000 (3) KLT 123 (SC) . Apart from the fact that there is no specific pleading by the decree holder that Ext.B19 certificate of purchase is vitiated by fraud and collusion the Civil Court cannot set aside the same on that ground without a prayer in that regard. (Vide Velappan v. Thomas - 1979 KLT 412). Bhaskara Pillai admittedly had 4 ½ acres of land of which two acres alone is covered by the agreement for sale. The obstructors/claimants are claiming portions of the 2 ½ acres of land covered by the oral lease in favour Mukundan Pillai. If the property leased out by Bhaskara Pillai to Mukundan Pillai is outside the two acres of land covered by the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff, then Ext.B19 certificate of purchase obtained by Mukundan Pillai is perfectly valid and cannot be said to have been hit by fraud or collusion or lis pendens. The Court below has not considered the question of lis pendens in the impugned order. Even if it is held that Ext.B19 certificate of purchase is hit by lis pendens, that does not in any way affect the anterior oral lease the validity of which will have to be considered de hors the certificate of purchase. Since the suit E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:6:- was instituted prior to 1-1-1970 the question of tenancy has to be considered by the Civil Court itself without reference to the Land Tribunal under Sec. 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. (Vide Kassim Rawther v. Mytheen Beevi -1988 (2) KLT 812, Krishnan Assari v. Parameswaran Pillai - 1989 (1) KLT 63, Sankaranarayanan Potti v. K. Sreedevi and Others - 1998 (3) SCC 751). Unless the certificate of purchase is shown to be inaccurate on its face or is vitiated by fraud, it has got its own conclusive value. ( Vide Mathew and Others v. Raluk Land Board - AIR 1979 1573 = 1979 KLT 601 SC) and Thanka v. State of Kerala - 1998 (2) KLT SN. 16. Fraud and collusion are vitiating circumstances which are to be specifically pleaded and proved and the instrument which is assailed on the ground of fraud or collusion is only voidable and not void. (See Ahmmed Kutty v Mariakutty Umma - 2000 (1) KLT 829 SC). Ext.B19 certificate of purchase was issued pursuant to Ext.X4 order dated 24-4-1979 wherein not only Bhaskara Pillai as respondent had admitted the oral lease but the Revenue Inspector who is the Authorised Officer acting under Sections 105, 105A read with Rules 139 to 141 of the Kerala E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:7:- Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 and who is thus a statutory functionary had, in his report stated that Mukundan Pillai is in possession of the holding pursuant to the oral lease of 1963. The said report [Ext. X1(d)] of the Authorised Officer, unless challenged, is binding. See Paily Thommen v. Thommen Thommen – 1984 KLT (SN) 34 and Jayasree v. State of Kerala - 1990 (2) KLT 294. There was no suggestion to P.W.2 (Mukundan Pillai) that Bhaskara Pillai had collusively created a lease in favour of his own agricultural worker and servant Mukundan Pillai. The Court below has not considered the question of lis pendens in both 1984 KLT 397 and 1995 (2) KLT 295 the question of tenancy was an issue both before the Civil Court as well as the Land Tribunal. But in the case on hand there was no question of tenancy in issue before the Civil Court. Even in the aforesaid two decisions referred to above this Court after holding that the certificate of purchase issued pendente lite was hit by lis pendens remanded the case back to the Land Tribunal for considering the validity or otherwise of the anterior lease. Paragraph 48 of the decision of the Full Bench reported in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Syndicate Bank - 1999 E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:8:- (1) KLT 637(F.B.) shows that Sec. 52 of the T.P. Act does not apply to previously existing transfers. In the case on hand the oral lease was prior to the suit . Hence, even if the purchase certificate is held to be hit by lis pendens the pre-existing lease will revive. Admittedly the decree holder has not filed any appeal against Ext.X4 order of the Land Tribunal. Arunkumar, Anitha and Abhilash who are the claimants who filed E.A.. No. 37 of 1998 (appellants in E.F.A. 4/2002), Radhakrishnan, the appellant in E.F.A. 21/2002 who was the claimant in E.A. 38/98 and Sudhakaran Nair and his wife Prasanna, the appellants in E.F.A. No. 8/2002 and who were the claimants in E.A. 40 of 1998 were all claiming under Advocate Sreekumaran Nair who was the counsel appearing for Mukundan Pillai and the said Sreekumaran Nair had purchased 45 cents of land from Mukundan Pillai. Mary Abraham, Sreekanth, Subhagan, Elizabeth George, Valsamma Jacob, Nazeer, Mathew Oommen and Molly Oommen, Mohanan Nair , Vasudevan Bhattathiry and Elizabeth Thomas are the appellants in E.F.A. Nos. 20, 43, 42, 11, 10, 23, 45, 14, 19, 12, 22, 44 and 18 and 24 of 2002 respectively. They are all claiming under one Ayyappan Pillai E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:9:- who in turn had purchased a total extent of 1.05 acres of land from Mukundan Pillai. The Oral evidence was also tendered by or on behalf of the above claimants. Even though the decree holder was aware of the transfers effected by Mukundan Pillai and the subsequent transfers by the transferees of Mukundan Pillai, he did not apply for injunction in the applications filed by him for removal of obstructions. It is true that against the order dated 6-4-1998 passed by the court below dismissing E.A. No. 51 of 1998 filed by Nazeer and allowing E.A. No. 84 of 1998 filed by the decree holder against the said Nazeer for removal of obstruction, there was no appeal filed by Nazeer and, therefore, he did not get the benefit of the remand by this Court as per the common order dated 25-3-1999. But after the remand, Nazeer was permitted to adduce evidence in support of E.A. 51 of 1998 and no objection was raised by the decree holder before the court below. Hence, it is not open to the decree holder now to contend that E.F.A. No. 14 of 2002 filed by Nazeer is not maintainable on the ground that the earlier order dated 6-4-1998 passed by the court below had become final as against him. The principle of res judicata available to the E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:10:- decree holder was waived during the enquiry after remand. It is well settled that res judicata can arise at different stages of the same litigation. When the decree holder who could have objected to the enquiry in the case of Nazeer failed to do so, he is precluded from raising the objection in E.F.A. 14 of 2002. The remand during the earlier occasion as per the common order dated 22-12-1998 reported in 1999 (1) KLT 484 was an open remand. As long as Ext.X1 (d) report of the Revenue Inspector stands unchallenged, it is not open to the decree holder to avoid Ext.X(4) order of the Land Tribunal on the ground of fraud. Ext. B19 certificate of purchase is only a consequential document issued in pursuance of Ext.X4 order. It is well settled that even if an order is secured on perjured evidence or trick or contrivance, it cannot amount to fraud. See Subramoniam v. Nagaramma - 1962 KLT 1019, Raghurama Rao v. Pathimabi - 1997 (2) KLT 70 and Gopalakrishnan v. Rajamma - 2006 (4) KLT 377. A perusal of the plaint schedule, decree schedule and the subsequent Ext.A2 sale deed executed through court by Bhaskara Pillai in favour of the plaintiff decree holder will go to show that the two acres of land E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:11:- covered thereunder is towards the northern extremity of 4.50 acres of land held by Bhaskara Pillai. The decree holder would say that the entire two acres covered by Ext.A2 is within the 2 ½ acres forming the subject matter of the oral lease. Admittedly, the decree holder has taken delivery of 55 cents of land and the balance extent to be delivered over is only 1.45 acres. The total area covered by of the applications filed by the decree holder for removal of obstructions comes to 2.10 acres. If the total extent covered by Ext.A2 sale deed is only two acres, there is no explanation as to why the decree holder seeks removal of obstruction over 2.10 acres. By holding that the decree holder will be entitled to be put in possession of the 2 acres of land only after taking out a commission and identifying the said 2 acres, the Court below has virtually accepted the dispute raised by the appellants regarding the identity of the property. By rejecting the claim of the appellants and directing the plaintiff to take out a commission before taking delivery, the Court below was really putting the cart before the horse. The common order passed by the court below overlooking these vital aspects cannot be sustained. E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:12:- JUDICIAL EVALUATION 5. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions made on behalf of the obstructors. THE FACTUAL BACKDROP 2-12-1964 One Bhaskara Pillai and his wife Rajamani Ammal executed a written agreement for sale of two acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.512, 513 and 514 of Cheruvaikkal Village in Padikkatt Muri of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk in favour of Raveendranath, the plaintiff in the suit. 01/06/1968 Consequent on the failure on the part of Bhaskara Pillai and his wife to execute the sale deed as was originally agreed to, Raveendranath instituted the suit O.S. No. 31 of 1968 on 1-6-1968 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking specific performance of the written agreement for sale and for possession of the said 2 acres of land. The defendants were Bhaskara Pillai and his wife Rajamani Ammal. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that time was the essence of the contract. (Ext. C3 is the written statement filed by the defendants) E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:13:- 26-2-1970 The suit was decreed as prayed for. The defendants were directed to execute a registered sale deed within one month at the cost of the plaintiff on the plaintiff depositing before court a sum of Rs. 59,200/-. It was further directed that if the defendants do not execute the sale deed even after the plaintiff depositing Rs. 59,200/-, a sale deed shall be executed by the court at the expense of the plaintiff after approving Ext.D2 draft sale deed and that the plaintiff shall be put in possession of the properties and thereupon the defendants will be allowed to withdraw from the court the sale consideration deposited by the plaintiff. (Ext.C4 is the judgment and Ext.C1 is the deposition of the first defendant Bhaskara Pillai). Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal before this Court. as A.S. 567 of 1970. 05/07/1974 The appeal A.S. 567 of 1970 was allowed and the case was remanded to the Sub Court, for the reason that the trial Court had wrongly accepted a statement filed on behalf of the plaintiff (and without notice to the defendants) relinquishing a part of the suit claim and instead, seeking a direction to the defendants to provide a pathway as mentioned in the written statement. E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:14:- 29-11-1974 The suit was again decreed after remand. (Ext.C5 is the judgment). The judgment directs (as before) that the plaintiff be put in possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the revised judgment passed by the Sub Court, the defendants again filed an appeal before this Court as A.S. 47 of 1976. Pending the above appeal one Mukundan Pillai filed Ext.X1 application dated 31-1- 1979 before the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram seeking assignment of 2½ acres of land alleging that the said property was orally leased to him on 10-8-1962 by Bhaskara Pillai (D1 in the suit) stipulating an annual rent of Rs. 1,000/- and that ever since then the said Mukundan Pillai was in possession of the property as cultivating tenant. Bhaskara Pillai and his wife Rajamani Ammal were shown as the respondents/landlords. E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:15:- 24-4-1979 As per Ext.X4 order dated 24-4-1979 the Land Tribunal which had suo moto initiated the case as S.M. 2/1979 declared the applicant Mukundan Pillai as a cultivating tenant entitled to purchase 2.50 acres of land comprised in Survey No. 509, 512, 513 and 514 of Cheruvaikkal Village on the ground that the landlords had in their written statement admitted the oral lease of the year 1962 set up by the tenant and that the enquiry report of the authorised officer showed that the applicant Mukundan Pillai enjoyed the 2 ½ acres of land from the year 1962 onwards. (Ext.X1 ( c) is the written objection dated 21-2-1979 filed by Bhaskara Pillai and Rajamani Ammal. Ext.X1 (d) is the report dated 5-3-1979 of the Revenue Inspector. Ext.X3 is the proceedings sheet maintained in the office of the Land Tribunal). 23-10-1981 When the appeal A.S. No. 47 of 1976 filed by Bhaskara Pillai and Rajamani Ammal challenging the decree for specific performance came up for hearing before this Court, the counsel appearing the appellants reported “no instructions” and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:16:- 26-2-1982 The decree holder filed E.P. No. 61 of 1982 alleging that notwithstanding the dismissal of A.S. No. 47 of 1976 the judgment debotrs had not executed the sale deed in his favour. Pending the E.P. Rajamani Ammal died and her children by name Nagarajan, Chandrika, Parameswaran, Vijayan, Asokan and Radhakrishnan were impleaded as her legal representatives. 23-09-1985 The Civil Court executed a sale deed in favour of the decree holder. (Ext.A2 is the sale deed registered as document No. 2576/1985 S.R.O. Pattom). E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:17:- 06/11/1986 The Court ordered delivery. 55 cents of land alone was delivered as there was obstruction by the following 5 persons:- i) Advocate Srekumaran Nair ii) Ayyappan Pillai iii) Sarojini Amma iv) Veena and v) Vinod. These 5 obstructors will be referred to as the primary obstructors. The decree holder filed E.A. Nos. 15 to 19/1987 under Order XXI R. 97 C.P.C. for removal of obstruction by the five primary obstructors. Sreekumaran Nair, Sarojini Amma, Ayyappan Pillai, Vinod and Veena who are the primary obstructors are assignees from Mukundan Pillai. As per Ext. A7 registered sale deed dated 16-7-1979 (Sale deed No. 2362/1979). Adv. Sreekumaran Nair who was the counsel appearing for Mukundan Pillai purchased 45 cents of land from Mukundan Pillai. Sarojini Amma who was none other than the mother-in- law of Mukundan Pillai and the 2nd primary obstructer purchased 1 acre of land from Mukundan Pillai as per document Ext.A9 sale deed dated 23-7-1979. Ayyappan Pillai who is the 3rd primary obstructor purchased 1.05 acres of land from Mukundan Pillai as per Ext.A8 sale deed dated 23-7-1979. E.F.A. Nos. 4,8,10,11,12,14, 18,19,20,21 ,22,23,24,42,43,44 and 45 of 2002 -:18:- 28-1-1998 The Executing Court as per common order overruled the objections raised by the five obstructors and allowed the aforesaid O.As filed by the decree holder and again ordered delivery after removal of obstruction. Sreekumaran Nair, Ayyappan Pillai and Saroini Amma filed appeals before this Court as E.F.A. Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of 1998. 13-2-1998 Amin again went to the property to effect delivery. Then 13 persons obstructed the Amin. Those 13 persons filed applications presumably under Order XXI R. 99 C.P.C. The decree holder also filed applications under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. for removal of obstructions by those 13 persons. The names of those 13 obstructors hereinafter referred to as the secondary obstructors, the area claimed by them and the documents under which each of them claimed are the following:- Sl.No Name of Secondary obstructor Area in cents Document number 1 Arun Kumar,