Ramachandran Nair, J.

The case has come up before the Full Bench as per Reference Order of the Division Bench dated 21.5.2010. The learned Single Judge referred the matter as per Reference Order dated 10.7.2009. The question referred before the Full Bench for its opinion, is the following:

“Where the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered by coequal benches express conflicting principles of law, which cannot stand together and, thus, present a serious problem to the High Courts and Subordinate Courts, what are the principles to be followed in choosing one or other of the conflicting judgments by the High Court when in a case the applicability of the conflicting decisions rendered by the apex court has decisive impact in its disposal.”

2. The factual matrix is in a narrow compass. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment debtors in E.P.No.14/2005 in O.S.No.184/1986 of the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur. The suit was one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property measuring 30 cents in Sy.No.962/1/2/6,1 of Kulathupuzha Village and for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The same was decreed on 14.2.1990. The defendants filed A.S.No.49/1990 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara against the judgment and decree, along with a petition to condone the delay, filed as I.A.No.1290/1990. The delay petition was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. Annexure I is the copy of the decree, in A.S.No.49/1990.

3. When E.P.No.14/2005 was filed by the decree holder, the revision petitioners contended, in the objection filed, that the execution petition is barred by limitation. The learned Munsiff ordered delivery of the property, against which the revision petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.24765/2005. This Court set aside the order of the court below and directed the court below to pass fresh order. The petitioners thereafter filed an additional objection to the execution petition and the court below ordered delivery, against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. In the detailed reference order, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decision relied upon by both parties. The petitioners relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Ratansingh v. Vijaysingh ((2001) (1) SCC 469) = 2001 (1) KLT 327 – SC), Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad (2004 (3) KLT 654 – SC = ((2004) 8 SCC 724) and State of Kerala and another v. Kodottyparamban Moosa and others (ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 11). The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in which a contrary view was taken, is the one in Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal (2005 (1) KLT 198 – SC). The decision in Ratnansingh’s case ((2001) 1 SCC 469) = 2001 (1) KLT 327 – SC) is by a Bench of two Judges, the decision in Chandi Prasad’s case ((2004 (3) KLT 654 – SC) is of a Bench of three Judges, the decision in Shyam Sundar Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal (2005 (1) KLT 198 – SC) is of a three Judges Bench and the decision in Kondottyparamban Moosa and other’s case (ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 11) is by a Bench of two Judges. The legal points decided in these cases are therefore to be analysed to appreciate the arguments raised by both sides.

5. In Ratansingh’s case (supra), the question considered was under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, viz. “Decree when becomes enforceable”. Therein, the decree passed in the suit was appealed against and the first appeal was dismissed. After 15 years of the dismissal of the appeal, an execution petition was filed. The decree holder relied upon an order passed by the High Court rejecting a Second Appeal by which the petition for condoning the delay in filing the Second Appeal was dismissed. In para 9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“Filing of an appeal would not affect the enforceability of the decree, unless the Appellate Court stays its operation. But if the appeal results in a decree that would supersede the decree passed by the lower court and it