JUDGMENT :

1. The execution second appeal arises out of concurrent findings rendered by the courts below in an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2.2. The decree holder resisted the contention by contending that the claim petitioner has no right and possession over the property. Neelakandan Velu had no title over the property and he was never in possession and hence, he had no right to execute any kind of document in respect of the property. The proceedings before the Land Tribunal was taken out during the pendency of O.S.No.155/1982 and therefore, is not binding. In the application before the Land Tribunal the Jenmi was shown as Parameswara Kurup and therefore, the same was collusive in nature. On behalf of the appellant/claim petitioner, Ext.A1 to A7 documents were marked. No docum