ABRAHAM JACOB Vs. ALICE KURIEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIS revision filed by a tenant against whom an order for eviction was passed in B. R. C. O. P. 125 of 1971 on the file of the Prl. Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, is directed against an order passed in execution rejecting HIS contentions that the respondents herein are not entitled to execute the said order.

(2.) SEVERAL grounds were raised before the executing court in support of these contentions. Before the executing court Ext. Al, a gift deed dated 24-2-1972 executed by Kochitti Punnan who was the petitioner in b. R. C. O. P. 125 of 1971 in respect of the building involved in the case in favour of respondents 2 to 7, was marked and pw. 1, the husband of the 5th respondent, was examined. The tenant himself was examined as CPw. 1 on his side, and he had no other witnesses to be examined or any document to be marked. The executing court finding that the gift deed Ext. Al was accepted by the donees during the lifetime of the donor and that the respondents are entitled to proceed with the execution proceedings rejected the contentions of the petitioner.

(3.) IN support of the contention that the first proviso to r. 16 of Order XXI has been violated, the counsel cited the decisions reported in Zila Singh v. Hazari (AIR. 1979 SC. 1066), Dhani Ram v. Sri Ram (AIR. 1980 sc. 157), Venkatamma v. Krishnappa (1981 (1) Karnataka Q. 119); Arvapalli ramrao v. Kamimariapudi Ranganayakulu and others (AIR. 1964 Andhra Pradesh (F. B.) 1), Bai Sahar and another v. Ismail Gafoor (AIR. 1937 Bombay 65), P. Abdul Samad Saheb v. Sowcar Kamaruddin Saheb and others (AIR. 1931 Madras 192)and Umamoyee Dasya and another v. Jatan Bowa and others (AIR. 1927 Calcutta 781 ). None of these decisions has any application to the facts of the present case except the decision reported in 1981 Karnataka L. J. 119, which has some bearing on the question in the sense that it has noticed the object of the explanation added to this Rule.