Judgment

S.B. SINHA, J.-

1. Leave granted.

2. The properties in question are said to be belonging to the Society of Congregation of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart. Brother Lawrence, who was then Superior General of the first respondent Society ("the Society") transferred 8 acres and 44 cents of land to one Siluvai Rajan by a deed of sale dated 18-10-1979. According to the Society, the said sale was illegal. After the death of the said purchaser, his wife sold the property to her sister Juliet Mary, the second respondent herein by a deed of sale dated 23-7-1986. The first respondent filed a suit against the second respondent in the Court of District Munsif, Tirunelveli which was marked as OS No. 1220 of 1987 praying for declaration of title and possession and consequential injunction. The parties entered into a compromise in terms whereof right, title and interest of the first respondent was accepted. A compromise memo was also filed. The suit of the Society was decreed in terms thereof. A decree was prepared on the basis of the said settlement declaring that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff Society, and granting permanent injunction restraining the second respondent herein or her agent or her men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Society.

3. After a lapse of about fourteen years from the date of passing the said decree, the second respondent filed a suit against the Society for a declaration that the aforementioned consent decree passed in OS No. 1220 of 1987 was null and void. According to her, she did not appear in the said suit nor put her signature on the memo of settlement. She was allegedly even not aware of the institution of the said suit. The said suit admittedly is still pending.

4. In the meanwhile, the second respondent entered into a purported agreement for sale with the appellant herein on or about 1-10-2002. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli being OS No. 140 of 2003. The said suit was decreed on 11-4-2003 and in execution of the said decree, a deed of sale was a executed and registered on 17-6-2003. The appellant filed an execution petition for obtaining possession of the said lands. The Central Nazir, while purporting to deliver possession on 19-10-2003, in his report stated:

"Most respectfully submitted, to the Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli by the petitioner-plaintiff, on 1.9-10-2003 on the orders of N. Ganesan, Senior Bailiff, District Court, Tirunelveli along with the undersigned, I visited b the schedule property and it was noticed that the above schedule property was not in the possession of the respondent-defendants, I explained the nature of order to the persons who accompanied me and the property was vacant land, I took possession through Senior Bailiff of the Court under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC."

5. The Senior Bailiff in his report to the court recorded:

"I went to the petitioner's place, at Munearpalam village, Palai T.K., along with the witnesses, the respondent was not there, I explained the nature of order regarding the vacant land under possession of the respondent and under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, and gave possession to the petitioner, attested copy of sale deed, decree copy is enclosed with this d return. Village Administrative Officer refused to sign."

6. The first respondent contends that they are still in possession. It filed an application in the said execution application being EA No. 1222 of 2003 before the executing court on the next day i.e. on 29-10-2003 stating:

"Now I came to understand that records have been created as though e the second respondent had delivered the possession of the property to the first respondent. Even though no such thing had happened in reality.

Because I alone am in the possession and enjoyment of the property." 7. The said execution application was dismissed. During pendency of the said execution application, the first respondent filed two suits