JUDGMENT :

This Execution Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 and Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for convenience) by Sri.A.V.Vimalkumar, a third party to the decree, who alleged to have purchased property, including property covered by the decree schedule, as per sale deed No.1697/2017 dated 27.10.2017 of SRO, Parali. The respondents herein are the decree holders as well as the judgment debtors in the execution petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the claim petitioner as well as the decree holders in detail. Perused the lower court records.

3. E.A.No.351/2019 is the petition filed under Sections 47 & 151 and Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of CPC. The sum and substance of the contentions raised in the execution petition could be read out from paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the claim petition and they are extracted as under:

“6. The petition schedule property along with other properties originally belonged to one Chemban, who was holding and possessing the same on verum pattom (tenancy) right under an oral lease from the Jenmi of the property, Polpakkara Mana. On the demise of the said Chemban, the said properties devolved on his legal heirs, Chami, Velan, Karappan and Kotha. Thereafter, the said Velan, Karappan and Kotha, released their rights over the said properties in favour of their brother, Chami, by executing a Release Deed No.694/1984, Parli SRO. On the demise of the said Chami, the said properties devolved on his legal heirs, wife, Neeli, and their progeny, Kandan, Raman, Chandran, Velayudhan, Kunji, Vellachi and Paru. Subsequently, the said Raman acquired exclusive right over 10 cents of land in Sy.No.52/5C (petition schedule property) by virtue of two registered documents of transfer, Release Deeds 1492/1991, Parli SRO, executed by Neeli, Kandan, Chandran, Velayudhan and Kunji and Release Deed No.3979/2007, Parli SRO, executed by Vellachi and Paru, and the transferee, Raman, was holding exclusive right, title, possession and enjoyment of the property conveyed, and accordingly mutation was also effected in the revenue records, and was paying land tax for the property and building tax for the house in the property.

7. The said Raman assigned the schedule property in favour of A.V.Vimalkumar, the claim petitioner herein, by executing a Sale Deed No.1697/2017, Parli SRO, dated 27/10/2017, for valid, valuable consideration full paid, thereby deriving valid title and possession of the petition schedule property. Thereafter, petitioner is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property, and is also paying tax for the property after effecting necessary mutation in the revenue records.

8. Subsequently, the petitioner also derived jenm right over the property purchased by him, by virtue of a Certificate of Purchase No.398/2018 issued to him by the Special Tahasildar, Land Tribunal, Palakkad, dated 25/07/2018, in the S.M. proceedings No.1327/2012.

9. xxxx

10. The respondents herein, who are the petitioners in the Execution petition or their predecessors-in-interest never held any right, title or possession of the scheduled property. The petitioners / decree holders are now attempting to execute the decree passed in the matter, which action is nothing but illegal and is done with ulterior motives to defeat the legal and valid rights of the petitioner herein, by withholding material information from Court and under a mistaken identity of the decree schedule property, which is invalid and not sustainable, as far as the petition schedule property is concerned.”

4. Resisting the claim petition, respondents 1 to 10/decree holders filed detailed objection. Paragraph No.10 of the order of the execution court would depict the contentions of the decree holders as under:

“10. Claim petitioner contended that the Advocate Commissioner in the E.P. has filed her report and plan without properly identifying the decree schedu