GEORGE JOSEPH @ JEFFY Vs. MOHAMMED AZEEM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex. Second Appeal 15/2010 is filed by Smt. Rajamma who obstructed the delivery of the property in E.P. 44 of 2001. The appellants in other appeals Ex.S.A. 13/2010 and 14/2010 are the assignees under Rajamma mentioned above. Execution Petitions were filed by the sharers to whom property shown in that E.P. 44/2001 was allotted. Two other obstruction petitions were also filed in E.P. 44/2001. The other two petitions were filed by the assignees under Rajamma. All the three petitions filed under Rule 97 of Order XXI were disposed of by the Execution Court by a common order.

(2.) Before the Execution Court P.W.1 to PW6 were examined and Exts. A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant/the appellants herein. On behalf of the decree holder DW1 was examined and Exts. B1 to B6 series were marked. Advocate Commissioner's reports and sketch were marked as Exts.C1, C1(a) and C2. Besides Exts. X1 to X3 were also marked.

(3.) The Execution Court found that Rajamma had not set up any specific claim with respect to any portion of the property covered by the final decree in O.S. 328/1987 and that she did not produce any convincing evidence to prove her right, title or interest over the property comprised in Sy. Nos. 223/6 and 223/5. It was also found that Rajamma had not taken delivery of the property allegedly decreed pursuant to Ext. A2 compromise. The Execution Court also found that the claim petitioner in E.A. 133/2003 claimed title on the strength of Ext. A8 sale deed dated 5-4-1966. That was a document executed by Harihara Iyer and his wife Rajamma in favour of one Maveli Vareeth and his grandchildren. It was found that Harihara Iyer or his wife Rajamma did not obtain right over the property and so their assignees also did not get any right over the property on the strength of Ext. A8.