RAGHAVAN NAIR Vs. ANANDAVALLY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises in execution of the decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Parur in O. S. No. 434 of 1120. The proceedings had a chequered career. E. P. No. 23 of 1970 was filed by defendants 73 to 99 for delivery of possession of that portion of suit item No. 2 allotted to them under the final decree. E. P. 32 of 1970 was filed by plaintiffs 18 to 30 for delivery of possession of that portion of suit item No. 1 which is allotted to them under the final decree. Both these petitions were resisted by defendants 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 20. They contended that the claim for possession is not sustainable without payment of the value of improvements. They also contended that they are tenants in respect of item No. 2 by reason of the provisions of S.4A (1) (a) of the Land Reforms Act. The learned Munsiff by order dated 4-3-1975 held that the revision petitioners are not tenants to be deemed as such under S.4A of Act I of 1964 in respect of item No. 2. The decree holders petitioners were allowed to recover possession of item No. 1 also from the respondents in the E. P. Defendants 14, 15,16, 17, 18 and 28 filed A. S. No. 41 of 1975 before the Additional District Court, Parur and assailed the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The learned District Judge held that defendants 1 to 20 cannot be considered to be mortgagees of plaint schedule item No. 2. The appeal was dismissed. The said defendants have come up in revision, C. R. P. No. 1964 of 1978. The orders passed by the courts below are assailed in this revision filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The suit was filed nearly 40 years ago. It had a chequered career. The suit was for partition of ten items of properties. It was also for redemption of item No. 2, which was subject to a mortgage of the year 1051. It is four and half acres of land in North Parur town. The minimum facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised for adjudication are as follows:

(3.) In this revision, it is contended: