14 of 1961 dated 12 8 1981, the respondents carried it in revision to the High Court.
2747 of 1982 by order dated 1 7 1985 as against the unimpleaded respondent and whether that order also companyes in aid to the appellants.
In other words, the order of the executing companyrt directing delivery of possession which was executed and possession taken in favour of the three persons was challenged against only two persons.
The execution petition being of the same property which is undivided between the decree holders, the question emerges whether the High Court was right in allowing CRP No.
Admittedly, the execution petition was filed by Rajeshwari Amma, Sukumara Pillai and Neelamma Pillai, the legal representatives of the deceased Kolappa Pillai.
After the execution petition was ordered by the Court of District Munsif at Kuzhithurai in EP No.
The order in favour of third person, namely, Neelamma Pillai became final.
274 of 1981 in OS No.
Therein only the deceased Kolappa Pillai, Rajeshwari Amma and Sukumara Pillai were impleaded as respondents omitting Neelamma Pillai.
On going through the record we find that there is some force in the arguments of Shri G. Viswanatha Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.
Since the order of delivery of possession in favour of the decree holders is companymon and inseparable and since it has become final as against Neelamma, the High Court was number right in setting aside the order as against the appellants.
