SAITHU MOHAMMED Vs. MAMMI ABDUL KHADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 8th defendant has filed this appeal against the decree in a suit to set aside a summary order. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit, and the 8th defendant is one of the legal representatives of the 1st defendant. The property involved in this suit consists of an area of 95 cents in two survey numbers I47/24-A and 147/24-B. The property belonged to one Ayyappan krishnan. He executed a usufructuary mortgage on 31-11-1088 in favour of Meera unni, the father of the 1st defendant. EXt. C is the copy of the mortgage. It was for Rs. 1,470/ -. One Kuruvilla Ouseph obtained a decree in S. C. S. 172/1088 against Ayyappan Krishnan and in execution of the decree attached the property and purchased the same in court auction on 26-12-1100. The auction-purchaser applied for delivery of the property.

(2.) AN obstruction was filed by Meera Unni, tha mortgagee, to the delivery of the property. Therefore, on 23-7-1103 the auction-purchaser filed an application for removal of the obstruction. The court allowed that application and ordered delivery and the property was delivered on 4-12-1103. Meera Unni thereupon applied for redele very of the property. Ext. U Is a copy of that application and that was dismissed by Ext. W order on 4-3-1105. Thereafter Kuruvilla Ouseph entered into an agreement for sale of the property under Ext. VII to D. W. 5 and after the death of Kuruvilla Ouseph his heirs actually conveyed the property under Ext. VI to D. W. 5, who sold the same to one Ananda Pai, who in turn sold it to the 1st defendant under Ext. XIV on 24-6-1118.

(3.) A creditor of the mortgagee, Meera Unni, had filed, a suit in 0. S. 6/1092 against him and attached the right of Meera Unni in the property on 17-3-1100. Thereafter the decree-holder in that case proceeded to sell the right of Meera Unni in the property and it was sold on 7-7-1104. He applied for delivery of the property, and obtained delivery on 5-3-1122. The 1st defendant who was in possession of the property thereupon filed an application for redelivery of the property. That was allowed by the execution court by Ext. 2 order passed on 8-11949. The revision filed against that order was dismissed by Ext. AA order on 156-1124. The auction purchaser in 0. S. 6/1092 transferred the property to the plaintiff under Ext. Q and the plaintiff has filed this suit to set aside Exts. Z and AA orders on the allegation that those orders were against law and fact.