The main legal point established is that the rule of lis pendens applies to involuntary transfers of possession, and the executing court is bound to determine the right to possession subject to this rule.

1. The decree-holder in O.S. 300 of 1101 on the file of the Munsiff's Court at Ernakulam, who is the counter-petitioner in M.P. 2398 of 1123 of the same court, has filed this petition seeking a revision of the order passed by the lower court on M.P. 2398. As per the redemption decree passed in his favour in O.S. 300 of 1101, he obtained delivery of the decree-properties through court on 3.10.1123. 34 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 1246 was also involved in that suit and was delivered over to the petitioner on 3.10.1123. The present controversy relates to this item of property. The petitioner in M.P. 2398 claimed to be in independent possession of this property in his own right and contended that he was wrongfully dispossessed by the decree-holder in O.S. 300 of 1101. On these allegations, he filed M.P. 2398 under O. 21, R. 97 of the Cochin Civil Procedure Code (corresponding to 0. 21, R. 100 of the Indian Code) and prayed for redelivery of the property. The decree-holder opposed that petition and contended that it was unsustainable and entirely lacking in good faith. It was also contended that the person seeking re-delivery is only a representative-in-interest of the 9th defendant in O.S. 300 of 1101 and as such he is concluded by the orders passed in that case. The executing court overruled these objections and held that M.P. 2398 is sustainable. It is this order that is sought to be revised.

2. Before proceeding to consider the points raised in this Revision Petition, it is necessary to state how the contending parties trace their claim to the possession of the property in dispute, ie. 34 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 1246 of Vaduthala Desom. As already stated, the decree and the execution proceedings in O.S. 300 of 1101 are all in favour of the decree-holder who is the revision petitioner. One Kotheril Achutha Menon had obtained possession of this property under as Adimachirthu granted to him from the Cherupalli Swaroopam. While he was thus in possession of the property, he granted a usufructuary mortgage in respect of this property, as well as other properties in favour of one Vareeth about the year 1080. Subsequently Achutha Menon's rights devolved on the plaintiff in O.S. 300 of 1101 and accordingly the plaintiff instituted that suit for redeeming the mortgage. The 1st defendant's son was also impleaded as the 9th defendant in the suit as a person in enjoyment of the property under the 1st defendant. The trial court's decree for redemption passed in the year 1101 was confirmed by the High Court in the year 1105. When the decree-holder attempted to get possession of the property by executing the decree, the 9th defendant and others raised a contention that the 34 cents of property covered by Survey No. 1246 was Poramboke land at the absolute disposal of the Government and that it was assigned in favour of the Cherupalli Swaroopam in the year 1095 and that this property was not included in the mortgage relied on by the decree-holder. That dispute was finally set at rest by the decision of the Cochin High Court in S.A. 46 of 1122. That decision is to the effect that property is dispute was also included in the mortgage which formed the basis of the decree in O.S. 300 of 1101 and that the decree-holder was entitled to recover possession of the same in execution of the decree. It was on the strength of that decision that he was put in possession of the property through court on 3.10.1123. In the meantime, the 9th defendant in the case executed a lease deed in respect of the sale property in the year 1109 in favour of the Cherupalli Swaroopam. On the strength of that lease deed, the Swaroopam sued the lessee for arrears of pattom and obtained the decree in O.S. 40 of 1122 of the Ernakulam Munsiff's Court. In execution of that decree, the lease hold right of the defendant was sold in court auction and it was purchased on one Varkkey Augustine, who obtained possession of the property on 2.2.1123