1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench on the ground that there is an apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court reported in Sadasivan Pillai v. State (1959 KLT. 501) and Vellakutty v. Karthiyani (1967 KLT. 667).

2. The second appeal which is filed by defendants 2 to 10 arises out of a suit for permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the plaint property by the plaintiff.

3. The plaint schedule property is a paddy land covering an extent of 1 acre 80 cents. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and it was decreed by the learned appellate judge.

4. The plaintiff claims possession of the plaint schedule property in pursuance to the delivery in execution of the decree in O. S.65 of 1957 on the file of the Palghat Sub Court evidenced by Ex. P2. The defendants while denying the title and possession of the plaintiff claim to be in possession of the property. The defendants deny the delivery of possession of the property under Ex. P2 to the decree holder in O.S. 65 of 1957 and they have also adduced evidence to prove their possession of the plaint schedule property even after the date of Ex. P2.

5. The learned District J