The second appeal is against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.41 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara. The matter came up before the lower appellate court from an order passed by the executing court on E.A.No.181 of 2014 in E.P.No.252 of 2012 in O.S.No.3 of 2012. The suit was one for specific performance of an agreement. The appellant filed a petition under Section Order 21 Rule 99 and Rule 104 CPC r/w Section 47 CPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

3. The specific questions of law put forward by the appellant are thus:

(i) Whether the lower appellate court is legally justified in holding that an application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is maintainable only after the person in possession was dispossessed?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court is legally justified in holding that appeal is not maintainable since adjudication under Order 21 Rule 100 CPC takes place only on an application filed by a person who is dispossessed in execution of a decree.

4. The relevant facts admitted by both sides are as follows: The contesting respondent obtained a decree for specific performance of a