A breach of contract occurred due to the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations.

(1) CA No. 4130 @ SLP (C) No. 8945 of 1997 Leave granted.

(2) RESPONDENTS 1 to 5 are the heirs of the two original plaintiffs. Respondent 6 is the original defendant in Suit No. 144 of 1971. The suit was filed by the original plaintiffs for possession which has been decreed on 11-10-1971. The first appeal as well as the second appeal were also dismissed. The judgment and decree in second appeal is dated 13-6-1982. The original decree-holders who are now represented by Respondents 1 to 5 applied for execution of the decree against the judgment-debtor, that is to say, the present Respondent 6, under Order 21 Rule 35 by an application dated 24-5-1978. In execution proceedings, the panchnama dated 6-3-1983 shows that execution was obstructed by the present appellant who declined to hand over the possession of the property to the bailiff on the ground that she was legally entitled to be in possession of the said property. The appellant was not a party to the suit proceedings.

(3) IN view of the obstruction so caused it was for the decree-holder to take appropriate steps under Order 21 Rule 97 for removal of the obstruction and to have the rights of the parties including the obstructionist adjudicated under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101. We do not know if any such proceedings have been taken by the decree-holders and whether such proceedings are pending or not. The appellant, however, made various applications including the present application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 21 Rule 35 and Order 21 Rule 101 for adjudication of her rights. All these applications of the appellant have been dismissed on the ground that these are premature since she is in possession.

(4) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is being repeatedly threatened with dispossession. We, therefore make it clear that the possession of the appellant cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law; and that in view of the obstruction raised by her to the execution of the said decree, the rights of the obstructionist will have to be decided in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Unless and until such proceedings terminate in favour of the decree-holder, the decree-holder cannot take possession and the appellant is entitled to retain possession.

(5) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. CA No.... @ SLP (C) No. 9204 of 1997

(6) LEAVE granted.

(7) ALTHOUGH this appeal pertains to a separate decree in respect of the second plot, the contentions are similar to those raised in CA No. 4130 @ SLP (C) No. 8945 of 1997. The second plot is also in possession of the appellant and a similar decree is obtained by Decree-holders 1 and 2 against Respondent 3. Therefore, an order similar to the order in CA No. 4130 @ SLP (C) No. 8945 of 1997 is passed in this appeal.

(8) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.