1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the concurrent decisions of the two courts below, dismissing a suit he brought under the provisions of 0.21 R.103, C. P. C. As the assignee decree-holder in O. S.553 of 1101 on the file of the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court, the plaintiff brought the plaint schedule property to sale and himself purchased it (22 -12 -1106). That decree was one obtained on foot of a simple mortgage defendant 1 executed in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest on 28-2-1100 (Ext. E). Afterwards on 12- 4-1101 defendant 1 sold the property to defendant 2 (Ext. L). Defendants land 2 were defendants 1 and 2 respectively in O. S.553 of 1101 and they were the only defendants to that suit. Soon after the court sale in his favour was confirmed and he obtained the sale certificate therefor, the plaintiff made an application to the court to obtain delivery of the property. Coming to know of this application, defendant 5 to the present suit filed a petition raising objections to the delivery. The ground of the objection was that the concerned property belonged to his sakha tarwad, that the tarwad was in possession of the same, that defendants 1 and 2 had no title to or possession of the same and that the plaintiff had therefore obtained no right to get the property delivered over to him. The execution court upheld the objection by its order dated 29-9-1112 (Ext. G). The plaintiff took the matter in revision before the High Court of Travancore in C. R. P. No. 123 of 1113 and the High Court dismissed the revision holding that as the plaintiff had a remedy by way of an original suit, it was unnecessary for the High Court to consider whether the execution court's order was right or not. This was on 22-11-1117 and Ext. H is a copy of the order. Apparently the Civil Revision Petition and another proceeding before the High Court (A. S. No. 402 of 1115) between the same parties were heard and disposed of together. The judgment in that appeal (Ext. N) bears the same date as Ext. H, the order on the revision. Thereafter, on 21-11-1118 the plaintiff brought the present suit and he lost it both in the court of the first instance, the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court and in the court of first appeal, the District Court of Kottayam, Hence the Second Appeal.

2. The plaint schedule property is 4 acres in extent and it forms the eastern one-half of Sy. plot 335/1 in Nedugunnam Pakuthy. Sy. plot 335/1 is 8 acres in extent and it originally belonged to one Kunnappally tarwad. On 25-3-1092 the Kunnappally tarwad granted an otti to defendants 3 to 9 to the present suit with respect to 5 acres on the western side, but two junior members of the tarwad got the transaction declared void by the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court in O.S. 165 of 1094. Ext. J is the decree passed in that suit (25-12-1095). The decree was, however, not executed and in a partition arrangement in the Kunnappally tarwad, dated 22-2-1095 (Ext. F), the entire property, that is, the whole of Sy. plot 335/1 was given to defendant 9 to this suit on receipt of a consideration of Rs. 280/- from her. The husband of defendant 9 was a kariasthan of the Kunnappally tarwad. There is no separate sale deed to evidence the transfer, but Ext. F has been taken by all concerned as sufficient to effect a valid conveyance. Ext. F refers both to the otti deed and the subsequent decree declaring it not binding on the tarwad, but proceeds to state that in lieu of the consideration of Rs. 280/- received from defendant 9, the property is made over to her absolutely and she was free to get the mutation effected in her name. Defendants 3 to 8 to the present suit are the children of defendant 9. Three years after Ext. F, defendant 9, her second son, defendant 4 and defendants 5 to 8 who were then minors acting through their father, sold the entire 8 acres to defendant 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,900/-. According to the plaintiff defendant 1 obtained possess