The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code is maintainable even after recording full satisfaction of the decree if there is further obstruction at the instance of the judgment debtor, and the property claimed by the judgment debtors was part of the decree schedule property.

A. Hariprasad, J.

The judgment debtors/respondents in E.A.No.74 of 2009 in E.P.No.359 of 2005 in O.S.No.885 of 1960 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants. The said application was filed by the 22nd decree holder (the sole respondent in this proceedings) under Section 151 read with Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). Prayer in the petition reads as follows:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to pass an order in the above E.P. To evict the respondents from decree C schedule property and to remove the obstruction caused by the respondents by arresting them and detaining them in civil prison and to pass an order directing that the petitioner may be put into possession of the Decree C schedule property, in the interest of justice."

The execution petition was filed for effecting delivery of decree B and C schedule properties in terms of the final decree in a suit for redemption of mortgage. As per order dated 14.02.2007 in the execution petition, the properties were ordered to be delivered on 22.02.2007. Accordingly, a warrant was issued to the Amin on 21.02.2007 for delivering the properties, except a piggery. Ten days time was granted for delivering the piggery. Thus the decree schedule properties, except the piggery, were delivered on 22.02.2007. Thereafter the Amin filed a report on 23.02.2007. It is the contention of the respondent that on behalf of the appellants, Shri Raghuvaran Nair, husband of the first respondent, had signed the delivery kaichit. Later, on 18.03.2007 the appellants trespassed into the decree C schedule property. Crime No.79 of 2007 of Vithura Police Station was registered against the appellants under Sections 188, 447 and 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 03.08.2007 a final report was submitted in the above crime before the court concerned. Thereafter on 28.03.2007, the appellants committed theft of rubber latex and another case was registered in the same Police Station as Crime No.88 of 2007, wherein also a final report was submitted. The appellants filed E.A.No.359 of 2007 on 21.03.2007 after trespassing into the property, in which they sought a declaration that the decree in O.S.No.885 of 1960 was not binding on them. They claimed to be owners of 2.88 acres of property comprised in survey No.3/1 of Vithura Village. It is the contention of the respondent that the appellants purchased the property from some one, whose predecessor-in-interest was the third defendant in the suit and the sale put forward by them is a transaction pendente lite. As such, the appellants are bound by the decree. Building bearing No. VP 1/627 has been mentioned in the commissioner's report filed on 07.06.1997 in the suit and identified as one situated in the plaint schedule property. Value of the same was assessed along with other improvements and the same was deposited by the decree holders before the court. According to the respondent, the property trespassed upon by the appellants is part of decree C schedule property and the appellants are liable to be evicted therefrom. As per the Village records, the total extent of land available in survey No.3/1 of Vithura Village is only 8.68 acres and that is decree C schedule property in O.S.No.885 of 1960. No property other than this is available in the said survey number. Delivery of the decree schedule property was effected on 22.02.2007 and satisfaction of the decree was reported on 23.02.2007. Appellants filed E.A.No.359 of 2007 only on 21.03.2007 after one month from the date of delivery with an oblique motive to harass the decree holders. E.A.No.359 of 2007 was dismissed on 11.08.2008 and the execution petition was closed on that date. E.A.No.649 of 2008 was filed by the appellants to restore the application (E.A.No.359 of 2007). That was also dismissed on 12.11.2008. Appell