JUDGMENT :

The appellant was the first respondent in E.A.No. 168 of 2004 in E.P.No 97 of 2003 in O.S.No.18 of 2001 on the files of Subordinate Judge’s court, Thalassery. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the claim petitioners, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein.

The first respondent filed the execution application under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the claim petitioner are as follows:

The petition schedule property originally belonged to K. V. Narayani, mother of the 2nd respondent. She agreed to sell the property to the first claim petitioner for a valid consideration, and an agreement for sale was executed on 9.11.1993. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/-was paid as advance to Smt.K.V. Narayani by the 1st claim petitioner on 9.11.1993. When Narayani failed to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed, a lawyer notice was issued on 17.3.1997, and a suit, as O.S. No.124 of 1997 has been filed before the Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thalassery, for specific performance of contract. After receiving the said lawyer’s notice, Narayani fraudulently executed an assignment deed on 11.6.1997 with respect to the petition schedu