The Ext. A5 purchase certificate issued under S.72K(2) of the Land Reforms Act, 1963, serves as conclusive proof of possession, and unless set aside by a competent authority or in a court of law, the statutory enforcement of possession must be honored.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

1. A defeated plaintiff is the appellant. Though suit had been earlier decreed, on appeal by defendants 1 to 6 and another one by the 8th defendant, the decree was reversed. Therefore, this Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

2. The suit was one for injunction. The plaintiff attempted to construct a compound wall surrounding the plaint schedule property. For that purpose, measurement was taken with the assistance of the Surveyor who issued notice to the defendants. The defendants, according to the plaintiff, threatened and trespassed. It was at that stage the suit was instituted for injunction.

3. After evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court found that Ext. A1 document of the year 1950 was sufficient to prove that the plaintiff had right over the plaint schedule properties. The Trial Court also found that Ext. A2, a judgment in O.S.No. 74/1956 of the Subordinate Judge, Palakkad was also sufficient to prove that the property was in the possession of the plaintiff. The decree in that suit was put in execution as is seen from Ext. A3 and A4. Ext. A5 purchase certificate also shows the boundary of the properties. One cent out of the property made mention of in Ext. A5 had been acquired for widening the road. Ext. A5 is the Pattayam issued by the Land Tribunal and that was issued to the plaintiff. Ext. A6, a sale deed and Ext. A8, a certified copy of statement in O.A. 951/71 by one Ramachandran were also sufficient to disclose that the plaintiff had been at all times in possession of the plaint schedule properties. The Trial Court also examined Ext. C1 commission report and found that the property had been duly identified as one having road on all the three sides. Thus, on the basis of the conclusive proof, according to the Trial Court, injunction was granted as prayed for against the defendants.

4. The pleadings of the defendants disclose that defendants No. 3 had mortgaged the very same property in favour of the 8th defendant Bank. Due to the default in payment of loan, the 8th defendant proceeded against the 3rd defendant and the property mortgaged by the 3rd defendant was put to sale and that was purchased in court auction by the 7th defendant. The other defendants claimed the property on the strength of Ext. B1 partition deed.

5. The lower appellate court, on the other hand, on the basis of Ext. A7, found that it had been executed by Pankajakshy in favour of Ramachandran and it had been shown that Pankajakshy had taken actual delivery of the properties. Therefore, the plaintiff had been dispossessed. It was also found that there was no evidence to show as to which was the property really involved in the Land Tribunal proceedings. Accordingly, it was found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove possession of the plaintiff to grant an injunction.

6. Though notice had been served on the respondents, the only contesting respondent before me is the 8th defendant, Bank. There is no appearance for other defendants. As already mentioned above, the 8th defendant claims the property on the basis of the mortgage deed executed by defendant No. 3 covering the properties. So far as the Bank is concerned, a suit had been filed against the 3rd defendant, a decree had been obtained, it had been executed and the property had been purchased by the 7th defendant. Therefore, there is no further right for the Bank to contest the matter. Even if any amount is due, it is for the Bank to enforce the decree against the 3rd defendant. In such circumstances, the Bank need not contest at all this appeal of the plaintiff as the Banks interest had already been secured.

7. In this respect, it has to be borne in mind that when injunction had been issued against the defendants including the 7th defendant, who is said to be in possession on the basis of the execution of a decree by defendant No. 8, the Bank, that 7th defendant did not file an appeal against the Trial Court decree. It is in that circumstances, this