The appeals challenge orders under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC allowing claims by respondents obstructing delivery of B Schedule properties (Mount Ruby Estate and Sapphire Estate) allotted to appellants via final decree in O.S. No.1/1964 dated 21.02.2003. [15000255200001] (!) (!)

Respondents trace title to 909 acres leased in 1897 for 75 years (expiring 1972) to William Espants Watts, assigned to Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Corporation (1931), Amalgamated Coffee Estates (1945), then Mathew T. Marattukulam et al. (1969 via Exts.A3-A5), M/s K.J. Plantations (1978 via Ext.A6), and further via power of attorney sales (Exts.A7-A14, 1990). [15000255200063][15000255200002][15000255200004][15000255200005][15000255200007]

Claimants assert leasehold rights over portions (274.20 acres each), possession, and bar to actual delivery; decree-holders not parties to their title suit (O.S.553/1991). [15000255200063][15000255200002] (!)

Appellants contend lease terminated by efflux of time (S.111 TPA), no renewal/rent post-1969, breaches (non-payment), claimants strangers/tenants at sufferance without transferable rights; receiver possessed since 1964 suit. (!) (!) [15000255200003] (!) - (!)

Execution court found claimants established subsisting leasehold interest/possession via documents, no receiver possession evidence, not bound by partition decree; directed symbolic delivery, fresh suit for eviction. [15000255200007][15000255200008]

Claims not time-barred (Art.128 Limitation Act inapplicable pre-dispossession). [15000255200014] (!)

No lease determination under S.111(g) TPA (no re-entry notice despite alleged breaches). [15000255200014] (!) - (!)

Assignments under Exts.A3-A5 (1969) valid (S.108(j) TPA permits absent contract contrary); agricultural lease exempt from Ch.V TPA but S.116 principles apply via equity. (!) - (!)

No receiver possession proven; Ext.A1 lease unchallenged in suit. (!) - (!)

Partition final decree confers possession right; O.21 R.35/36 CPC bars actual delivery to tenants; claimants independent rights require separate eviction suit. (!) [15000255200016]- (!)

Lease determined 1972 efflux (S.111(a) TPA); no S.116 holding over (no pleaded/proven rent payment/assent by lessor; bilateral implied contract needed, burden on claimant). [15000255200020]- (!) [15000255200035]

Post-1972 assignees (Ext.A6 etc.) at best tenants at sufferance (wrongful bare possession, no estate/transferable interest; juridical protection personal, not assignable). [15000255200022][15000255200037]- (!) [15000255200044]-[15000255200047]

O.21 R.97/99/101 CPC require claimant independent possession right beyond judgment-debtor; mere possession insufficient post-1976 amendment. [15000255200047][15000255200056][15000255200057]

Claims dismissed; no leasehold/sufferance rights; appellants may proceed per law (no O.21 R.97 filed); improvements compensation not adjudicated. [15000255200058][15000255200060] (!)