DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM, Vs. NARAYANARU THRIVIKRAMARU AND MADHAVAN POTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 110/1958 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners in this writ petition. The first respondent is the plaintiff/decree holder. A decree for redemption was passed by the Munsiff Court which was confirmed in first appeal and subsequently in second appeal. During the execution proceedings, petitioners raised claim of fixity of tenure. The land Tribunal negatived the claim against which petitioners filed C.R.P.246/1996 before this Court. This Court originally allowed the revision petition which was set aside by the Supreme Court and rejection of question of tenancy by the trial court was restored by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the other questions. Subsequently, this Court again considered other questions as directed by the Supreme court and by judgment dated 13.6.2003 in the same CRP confirmed the order of the executing court and further directed the executing court to facilitate delivery of the property scheduled in item No. 2 at the earliest taking into account the delay.

(2.) IN compliance with the said direction and in view of the dismissal of rejection of claim for tenancy, the executing court ordered delivery and considered other claims raised. The executing court ordered delivery on 4.9.2003 and delivery was effected on 5.9.2003 as per the report of the amin deputed by the court.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY E.A. No. 1274/2003 was filed by the same petitioners praying to set aside the delivery. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the executing court dismissing the petition. Executing court in the said order observed that E.A. No. 962/2003 filed for reviewing the order of delivery stands dismissed and held that the present application is devoid of any merit and that all questions regarding right of the parties have been already agitated and adjudicated by the courts. Ext.P7 order is challenged before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram by filing C.M.A. Ext.P9 is the order passed by the court. The appellate court held that no appeal will lie against the impugned order and therefore the appeal was dismissed.