and later Mr. Nagoor was also impleaded as a party defendant.
In view of the obstruction by the appellant herein, respondent number 1 filed an application before the executing companyrt under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for certain reliefs.
The Bailiff along with police, Taluk Surveyor and the decree holder came to execute the decree on 8.4.1999.
The respondent number 1 herein purchased land measuring 6 cents from one Mr. Robert who in turn had acquired the land under a deed of settlement dated 25.2.1967 from one Mr. John, who had purchased it from Mr. Nagoor on 26.11.1960.
of land from Deva Anbu by a registered sale deed dated 26.3.1990.
It appears that the said Mr. Nagoor sold lands out of the said plot to others as well, one of them being Pakairaj to whom he sold 6 cents of land on 14.5.1981.
The appellant before us is one of the persons who obtained by respondent number 1 herein.
The order of the executing Court dated 22.11.1999 was challenged before the High Court in revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Respondent number 1 filed suit O.S. No.
It is number disputed that on 29.12.1998 the suit filed by respondent number 1 was decreed.
The said revision petition was allowed by the High Court by its impugned judgment and order.
The purchase by respondent number1 was on August 6, 1969.
The appellant herein submitted her written objections claiming that the land, of which possession was sought to be given to the decree holder, was the land belonging to her which she had validly acquired under a registered sale deed.
Respondent No.
The respondent No.
The said order is challenged before us.
According to executing companyrt the decree holder ought to have filed and application under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. whereafter the procedure prescribed by the following Rules had to be observed and the matter adjudicated.
The appellant before us had also purchased 2970 sq.ft.
1 decree holder filed a petition under Section 151, C.P.C before the executing companyrt on 23.4.1999 to remove the obstructor, namely the appellant herein.
In view of its findings the executing companyrt on 22.11.1999 dismissed the petition filed under section 151 CPC Respondent No.1 decree holder preferred revision against the order of the executing companyrt dismissing his application under Section 151, C.P.C. The High Court by its impugned order allowed the said revision petition and setting aside the order of the executing companyrt directed removal of the obstructor, namely the appellant herein.
Suffice it to say that by order dated 30th March, 1999 the Trial Court passed an order for delivery of possession of suit land to the respondent number 1 plaintiff.
Though an application was filed under section 151, P.C. it appears that the companyrt recorded evidence and ultimately came to the companyclusion that the application filed by the respondent number 1 decree holder under Section 151, C.P.C. was number maintainable.
The executing companyrt rejected the said application holding it to be number maintainable.
The second appeal also came to be dismissed on 22.2.1990.
Packiraj was the defendant in this suit.
138 143 of 2000.
A first appeal preferred by Mr. Pakiaraj was also dismissed.
P. Singh, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the companymon judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated August 10,2000 in Civil Revision Petition number.
Several other applications were made by the decree holder for amendment of the decree incorporating various other specifications.
It appears that thereafter on 12.10.1985 Mr. Nagoor sold 6 cents to one Mr. Deva Anbu.
He found that the property identified by the decree holder was quite different from the land described in the decree and accordingly he made a report to the Court to the effect that since the identity of the land which was subject matter of the decree was in doubt, the warrant companyld number be executed.
1 sought amendment and claimed declaration of title of 10 cents of land i.e. 4425 sq.ft.
The decree holder respondent number 1 herein also made a similar endorsement.
