The executing court is bound to execute the decree as it stands unless it is a nullity or lacks inherent jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2020 passed in A.S.No.136/2020 on the file of the Additional District Court-V, Palakkad challenging the order dated 07.09.2020 passed in Claim E.A.No.195/2020 in E.P.No.150/2016 in O.S.No.221/2013 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur.

2. Claim E.A.No.195/2020 was filed by the appellant as the claim petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.'). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the decree holders and the 3rd respondent is the judgment debtor and respondent No.4 is the transferee of the respondent No.3. The 4th respondent is not a party to the Execution Petition and the Original Suit. He had filed a claim petition as E.A.No.157/2018 in execution petition. The claim petition was dismissed on merits later.

3. A suit was filed for both mandatory and prohibitory injunction directing the 3rd respondent to remove the iron staircase situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule item No.1 property and for consequential permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in possessing and enjoying the plaint schedule property in any manner.

4. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.12.2013. The 3rd respondent, the owner of the building sold out the building to other persons and ultimately the first floor was purchased by the 4th respondent in the year 2018. On 26.12.2019, the 4th respondent leased out the first floor to the appellant and since then it is alleged that she has been making use of the disputed staircase for ingress and egress to the room. It is contended that the disputed staircase is the main ingress and egress to the upstairs of the said building and no proceedings have been initiated by the local authority to remove the staircase.

5. The case of the claim petitioner is that she is a lessee of the premises as per the agreement dated 26.12.2019 with respondent No.4, for the purpose of conducting fashion designing shop for a period of 11 months. She would swear that she has been conducting business therein under the name and style 'Veda Designing Boutique' in the said room situated in the first floor of the building. According to her, the iron staircase referred to in the plaint B schedule property in E.P.No.150/2016 is being used for ingress and egress to the above shop room. She would say that on 20.8.2020, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 tried to remove the iron staircase and hence the petition was filed before the court. The above Claim EA was dismissed by the executing court as per common order dated 07.09.2020. Challenging the above order, an appeal was taken before the District Court, Palakkad which was later dismissed. Hence, this Execution Second Appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 4th respondent and his predecessors are bonafide purchasers for valid consideration. Elaborating on the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the right on the staircase was vested with the appellant and the same cannot be taken away in furtherance of a judgment passed in the above suit behind the back of the appellant. Thus, it is contended that the decree allowing to dismantle the staircase is void ab initio. The learned counsel for the appellant maintained that the appellant being a tenant, her rights cannot be denied except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is further contended that the earlier proceedings initiated by the 1st and 2nd respondents against the 3rd respondent is collusive in nature and thus hit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was argued that the parties were not accorded with necessary opportunity to tender their evidence by the trial court as provided under Order XXI Rule 101 of the C.P.C.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant a learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the appeal on 04.02.2021 and called