The claim petitioners in E.A. Nos. 731 and 842 of 2006 in E.P. No. 95 of 1982 in O.S. No. 339/1969 on the file of the II Addl. Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, are the appellants in these Execution Second Appeals filed under Sec. 100 read with Order 42 R. 1 and Order 21 R. 103 C.P.C.

2. At the time of hearing on admission of these Second Appeals, the respondents/decree holders who had lodged caveats were also heard. These Second Appeals were heard on the following questions of law:-

i) Were the courts below justified in holding that while dealing with a petition under Order 21 R. 97

C.P.C. the executing court is not entitled to go behind the decree to record a finding as to whether the plaintiff/decree holder is entitled to delivery of possession as against a stranger obstructor ?

ii) In proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. whether the courts below were justified in taking the view that where the delivery is obstructed by a stranger claiming a right independent of the judgment debtor, the burden is on the obstructer to prove that he has a better title than that of the decree holder ?

iii) In an adjudication under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C. at the instance of a stranger to the d