1. Pursuant to a decree for specific performance of contract, a document of conveyance was executed in favour of the decree-holder through court. The decree-holder applied for delivery of possession of the property on the strength of the said instrument. When Amin went to the property to effect delivery the present appellant offered resistance and obstructed delivery, contending that he is kudikidappukaran of the building situated in the property. The decree-holder filed as application for removal of obstruction, under 0.21 R.97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). The execution court allowed the application holding that "no application under 0.21 R.97 would lie at the instance of an obstructor in anticipation of his dispossession in execution of a decree to which he is not a party". The lower appellate court, though differed from the reasoning of the execution court, dismissed the appeal holding that the question of kudikidappu does not arise for consideration and that the appellant has not proved that he has any right, title or interest in the property. It was also found that "the appellant is set up by the 6th defendant for the purpose of delaying the