The main legal point established in the judgment is that the executing Court's decision on a tenancy claim, made within its jurisdiction, is a decision by a competent court and attracts the rule of res judicata.

Sivathanu Pillai Krishnamoorthy Pillai, residing with Vakil Sivathanu Pillai of Nagercoil, is the revision petitioner; and he seems to be very tenacious.

2. He was the first defendant in O. S. 531/58, a suit for redemption, decreed on 11-1-1962. It appears that when execution was taken out in E. P. 286/63, value of improvements was claimed. Assessment of the claim took time and the E. P. was dismissed for default on 25-3-1969. The respondent herein later filed E. P. 1109/74. She was not a party to the decree. Notice on the E. P. was served on the first defendant on 20-2-1975. The other parties were served later, and on 20-3-1976 the Court impleaded the respondent as additional 3rd plaintiff. On 17-6-1976 deposit of mortgage money and value of improvements was ordered, and the deposit was duly made. The 16th defendant claimed "kudikidappu" and that claim was referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125 of Act I/64. The tribunal's findings became available by 3-1-1977 and the E. P. was then posted for evidence and hearing to 5-2-1977. The first defendant then applied for time; and on 14-2-1977 (i.e. about two years after service of notice) he filed objections claiming that he was a tenant under Section 4A of Act I/64. By order dated 31-3-1977, the Court upheld his tenancy claim. But the respondent applied for review, and by another order dated 27-3-1978 the Court held that the petitioner-1st defendant was entitled to the benefit of Section 4A. He appealed, and the District Court remanded the matter. After remand, the executing Court heard the matter again and passed an order on 7-8-1980 rejecting the claim based on Section 4A.

3. The petitioner then came to this Court, in C.R.P. No. 2017/80, challenging the order dated 7-8-1980. Though a ground was taken against the finding regarding Section 4A, that was not argued or pressed. The only point urged was that the E. P. of 1974 was time barred. I dealt with this contention and held that the petitioner was precluded from raising it by reason of constructive res judicata. The C.R.P. was accordingly dismissed on 5-3-1981.

4. The petitioner was in the meanwhile fighting his battle on another front also. He had filed O. A. 514/74, before the Land Tribunal for purchase of landlord's rights. Obviously, the claim there was also one of tenancy. The tribunal dismissed the O. A. An appeal (A. A. 353/76) was taken before the appellate authority, but that also did not succeed. C.R.P. No. 902/79 filed against the appellate authority's order was pending all the while before this Court. On 9-6-1981 my learned brother Balakrishna Menon, J., disposed it of by directing the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, as adequate opportunity had not been given to the 1st defendant to establish his claim. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the self-same tenancy claim had been considered in E. P. 1101/74 and that the decision had become final, in view of the order dated 5-3-1981 in C.R.P. No. 2017/80. His Lordship observed that that was a matter the respondent could raise before the Tribunal.

5. Armed with the above observation in C.R.P. No. 902/79, the first defendant again attempted to resist execution in E. P. 1101/74, when it was taken up after the disposal of C.R.P. No. 2017/80. He told the executing Court that the High Court had directed a re-examination of the tenancy claim by the tribunal (in the O. A. proceedings) and that till that was completed, execution could not proceed. One can easily see that the attempt was again to bide time, because even if the tribunal happened to dismiss the O. A. on the ground that a competent civil Court had finally rejected the claim, there could still be an appeal to the appellate authority and probably a revision to this Court. A more formidable contention was also raised before the executing Court; and that was to the effect that its decision on the tenancy claim, in E. A. 1101/74, was a nullity, in view of the decision of this Court in Keshava B