The main legal point established in the judgment is that collusive transactions meant to cover the real nature and purpose cannot be protected under S.7B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the rule of lis pendens applies to claims under S.7B.

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. Appellants are the obstructors, who failed before the execution court and the first appellate court.

2. The unfortunate litigation, which gave rise to these obstructions in execution, started in the year 1111 ME as O. S. No. 131 before the Subordinate Judge, Alappuzha. The suit was filed by Peethambaran Pillai, who was the Karanavan of Koithunni branch of Chakkumthara tharavad. The branch consisted of the thavazhies of Parvathi Kalyani and Parvathi Ichira. Peethambaran Pillai belonged to the first and the first defendant, Padmanabha Pillai, to the second. Though Padmanabha Pillai was a junior member of Koithunni branch, he was the senior member in the thavazhi of Ichira. Therefore, he was in possession of the properties allotted to that thavazhi for maintenance. When he unauthorisedly began to encumber and alienate the properties one after another, the suit was filed by the karanavan to remove him from management and to recover the properties after avoiding the alienations. The suit was ultimately decreed by this court in 1954 and a receiver was put in possession. Subsequently, the official receiver took over.

3. When execution was taken out to get delivery, the Amin was obstructed by several persons, including the appellants in the two second appeals or their predecessors. All the obstructions were considered together and disposed of by a common order. The application of the official receiver to get delivery after removal of all the obstructions was allowed. There were four appeals and cross objections in some of them. Cross objections related to kudikidappu rights allowed to some of the obstructors. All the appeals and cross objections were dismissed by a common judgment. Now, in these two second appeals, we are concerned only with the obstructions relating to 40 cents and 98 cents out of 3 acres 70 cents in Item No. 6 by the appellants in S. A. No. 13 of 1986 and Item No. 10 by the appellants in S. A. No. 13 of 1990, which was originally filed as a civil revision petition. Appellants in S. A. No. 13 of 1986 are claiming benefits under S.7B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, on the basis of registered documents, and the appellants in S. A. No. 13 of 1990 under oral lease, coupled with surrender from another tenant. All the transactions were by the first defendant after the institution of the suit. All of them have obtained purchase orders and purchase certificates also from the Land Tribunal. These orders and certificates were also obtained after the institution of the suit.

4. The purchase orders and purchase certificates are not even worth considering. The karanavan or other members of the tharavad were not made parties and no notice was given to them. First defendant and his personal heirs alone were impleaded. The purchase orders and purchase certificates are not only collusive and obtained behind the back of the parties without contest and without impleading and giving notice to proper persons, but they were all obtained during the pendency of the litigation also. Explanation to Order XXI R.102 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also relevant in that connection. Therefore, these documents are only to be ignored. The oral tenancy claimed by the appellants in S. A. No. 13 of 1990 is unsupported, by any acceptable evidence also.

5. Therefore, the only claim worth considering is that under S.7-B by the appellants in S. A. No. 13 of 1986, They are the legal representatives of the fourth respondent in execution. Her husband (father of the appellants) is alleged to have had a lease of 1106 for 98 cents from the first defendant even before suit. But such a claim was not established. The fourth respondent's case was that she got a registered lease for the same property in 1113 from the first defendant. It is styled as a Nadappu panayadharam, which means mortgage. 40 cents is also claimed on the basis of such a registered document from the first defendant after suit. It is doubtful whether these documents cou