The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for parties to adduce better evidence to establish their title and possession over disputed property, and the limitations of relying solely on the Amin's report in delivery proceedings.

S. Krishnan Unni, J.

Petitioner in E.A. No. 8 of 1971 in R.E.A. No. 477 of 1970 in R.E.P. No. 552 of 1965 in O.S. No. 94 of 1954 on the file of Munsiff, Kasaragod is the appellant. O.S.94 of 1954 was a suit filed by Srimath Anantheswar Temple against one Achu for recovery of possession of plaint schedule properties with mesne profits. The properties are situated in R.S. No. 90 and Ext. A61 suit Register gives details of the properties sought to be recovered. O.S. No. 94 of 1954 was decreed ex parte on 15.11.1954; suit property was delivered and execution petition was closed on 10.3.1955. Thereafter, plaintiff filed R.E.P. No. 552of 1965 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,244.26 from the judgment-debtor (Achu). They attached 3 items of properties, viz. 34 cents in R.S.88/5,16 cents in R.S.90/1 and 1.25 acres in R.S.90/7. The properties were brought to sale and bid in auction by one Ananda who is none other than the son of Achu, the judgment-debtor. A sale certificate was issued on 18.11.1970. Thereafter, the auction-purchaser filed R.E. A. No. 477 of 1970 for delivery of the properties purchased by him. On 28.11.1970 the execution court passed an order to deliver the properties subject to standing crops. The Amin visited the property on 24.12.1970 and delivered the property except two houses therein. Ext. C2 is the report filed by the Amin on 28.12.1970. On 6.1.1971 the present appellant filed E. A.8 of 1971 under 0.21 R.99 CPC to reject the report of the Amin, contending that he is in possession of 16 cents in R. S.90/1 and that it is incorrect to state that Achu was ever in possession of the properties. An objection was taken in the counter statement that such a petition is not maintainable, the prayer was amended as one for re-delivery under 0. 21 Rr.100 and 101 CPC. Subsequently on 24.10.1973, while the petition was pending, the judgment debtor died and his morumakkathayee heirs were impleaded.

2. Exts. A1 to A61 and B1 to B7 were marked. Petitioner was examined as PW.1.On behalf of respondents, one Ballya Bellunga Belchappada (respondent No. 8 in the E. a.) was examined as RW.1. The auction-purchaser was examined as RW.2. The Amin who effected delivery was examined as a court-witness, C W.I. The sale certificate and delivery receipts were marked as Exts. C1 to C3. The execution Court held that neither the petitioner Ayyappa nor the 1st respondent Ananda had established any title to the property. It also held that the claimant had failed to prove that he was in possession of 16 cents except the house which was not delivered, and consequently dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by it, A.S.96 of 1982 was filed before Sub Court, Kasaragod. The learned Sub Judge concurred with the above findings because there was no documentary evidence to prove that appellant got possession or title over 16 cents of property. Consequently the appeal was dismissed. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal.

3. The case of the appellant is that the property belongs to his tarwad and his uncle Achu (judgment-debtor) had no exclusive interest in the same. The Amin reported that there were 4 houses in the 3 items of properties attached; there was resistance with regard to the two houses which were not delivered. One house was occupied by the judgment-debtor himself. It is not disputed that appellant-claimant is residing in a house located in R.S.90/1. The 16 cents claimed by him lies around his house. According to him, it is his tarwad property. He relies on Ext. B7, copy of Survey and Settlement register standing in the name of Bellunga Belchapada. The appellant's argument is that Bellunga Belchapada be longed to his family. For this purpose, he has examined RW.1, another Belchapada who has given supporting evidence to that effect. He has also spoken about the relationship. Apart from Ext. B7, the appellant has not produced any other documentary evidence to show that his family dealt with these properties or members of the family or h