1. Ex. Second Appeal 15/2010 is filed by Smt. Rajamma who obstructed the delivery of the property in E.P. 44 of 2001. The appellants in other appeals Ex.S.A.13/2010 and 14/2010 are the assignees under Rajamma mentioned above. Execution Petitions were filed by the sharers to whom property shown in that E.P.44/2001 was allotted. Two other obstruction petitions were also filed in E.P.44/2001. The other two petitions were filed by the assignees under Rajamma. All the three petitions filed under Rule 97 of Order XXI were disposed of by the Execution Court by a common order.

2. Before the Execution Court P.W.1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant/the appellants herein. On behalf of the decree holder DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B6 series were marked. Advocate Commissioner’s reports and sketch were marked as Exts.C1, C1(a) and C2. Besides Exts.X1 to X3 were also marked.

3. The Execution Court found that Rajamma had not set up any specific claim with respect to any portion of the property covered by the final decree in O.S.328/1987 and that she did not produce any convincing evidence to prove her right, title or interest over the property comprised in Sy.Nos.223/6 and 223/5. It was also found that Rajamma had not taken delivery of the property allegedly decreed pursuant to Ext.A2 compromise. The Execution Court also found that the claim petitioner in E.A.133/2003 claimed title on the strength of Ext.A8 sale deed dated 5-4-1966. That was a document executed by Harihara Iyer and his wife Rajamma in favour of one Maveli Vareeth and his grandchildren. It was found that Harihara Iyer or his wife Rajamma did not obtain right over the property and so their assignees also did not get any right over the property on the strength of Ext.A8.

4. The claim petitioner in E.A.132/2003 claimed right over the property on the strength of an assignment deed executed by the daughter of one Maveli Jacob on 19-12-2000.

5. The suit for partition was originally filed before Principal Sub Court, North Paravur. After it was transferred, the suit was renumbered in the Munsiff’s Court, Aluva as O.S.328/1987. It was in that case a preliminary decree was passed, pursuant whereto a final decree was passed. The plaint schedule property mentioned therein measures 41.805 cents in Sy.Nos.223/5 and 223/6 of Aluva Village. In terms of the preliminary decree, the Commissioner divided the property into 20 plots. Based on the Commissioner’s report, the final decree was passed. The sharers to whom different plots were allotted in the final decree applied for execution of the decree. When the Amin deputed by the Execution Court went to effect delivery of the different plots to the decree holders/respondents herein on 19-6-2003 there was obstruction regarding plot Nos.16, 17 and 18. That fact was reported by the Amin to the Execution Court on 20-6-2003. While so, three claim petitions were filed by the appellants in the three above appeals regarding plot Nos.16, 17 and 18. Those three plots are the subject matter of these three appeals.

6. The total extent of the property involved in the three claims petitions is 8.036 cents, out of which plot No.16 is in Sy.No.223/6 and is having an extent of 2.540 cents. Plot No.17 is in Sy.No.223/5 and its extent is 2.104 cents. Plot No.18 is in Sy.No.223/5 which has an extent of 3.392 cents.

7. E.A. 137/2003 is the application filed by the appellant Smt. Rajamma under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. O.S.320/1987 was the suit for partition of 41.805 cents of land. It was the 6th item in O.S.10/1959. A compromise decree in O.S.10/1959 was passed in 1971. 10th defendant in O.S.10/59 was Neelakanda Iyer who is the father of Harihara Iyer. Rajamma the appellant is the wife of Harihara Iyyer. O.S.11/1959 was filed by Neelakanda Iyer. That suit was dismissed. When Neelakanda Iyer died, his son Harihara Iyer, the husband of the appellant was impleaded as D50th defendant in O.S.10/1959. It was stated