The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with the procedures outlined in Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure in establishing the right to possession of the property.

Rajamannar, J.

1. The plaintiff (appellant) is a limited company carrying on business at Coimbatore. On 27th January, 1930, the plaintiff company purchased several items of property including a rice mill, houses, a shop, machinery and agricultural land from four brothers, namely, Parasurama Naicker, Srinivasa Naicker, Murugesa Naicker and Manicka Naicker. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Parasurama Naicker. Defendants 4 to 6 are the sons of Srinivasa Naicker. Defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of Murugesa Naicker. Two days after the execution of the sale deed a lease of four items out of the properties purchased was granted by the plaintiff to Parasurama Naicker on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. In 1932 the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 536 of 1932 in the Court of the District Munsiff at Arni, against Parasurama Naicker and his undivided sons, the present first and second defendants (the third defendant was not then born) to eject them from the properties leased and for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff obtained a decree on 5th May, 1933, and the decree was confirmed on appeal on 26th October, 1933. The plaintiff then attempted to obtain delivery of the properties but was met with obstruction by the present fifth defendant who, it is common ground, was acting on behalf of the present seventh and eighth defendants. The plaintiff thereupon filed two applications, E.A. Nos. 2419 and 2160 of 1933, for removal of the obstruction and for delivery of possession. The applications were dismissed by the District Munsiff of Arni on 2nd August, 1934. He held that the present seventh and eighth defendants were entitled to obstruct the plaintiff in their own right and that they were not in possession on behalf of the judgment debtors in O.S. No. 536 of 1932. This order must be deemed to have been passed under Order 21, Rule 99, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff ill-advisedly, filed an appeal against this order and it was held, and rightly, that no appeal was maintainable. The appeal was dismissed on 9th September, 1935. The plaintiff after the lapse of nearly seven years now brings a suit on the 20th January, 1942, for a declaration that it is entitled 10 be put in possession of the properties without any obstruction from the defendants-and for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

2. It is also necessary to mention, because an argument was based on the fact, that the present defendants and their fathers brought a suit in 1933 (O.S. No. 6 of 1933) to obtain a declaration that the deed of sale dated the 27th January, 1930, in favour of the plaintiff was not intended to be a conveyance but was intended to be a deed of mortgage and that the mortgage itself had become discharged. This suit was eventually withdrawn on the nth January, 1936.

3. The Subordinate Judge of Vellore who tried the suit dismissed it on the sole ground that the order passed by the District Munsiff of Arni on the 2nd August, 1934 upholding the right of the seventh and eighth defendants to possession of the properties now in dispute had become final and conclusive as no suit had been brought under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure to establish the right which the plaintiff now claims to possession of the properties. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the decree dismissing the suit.

4. When an application is made by the holder of a decree for possession of im-moveable property under Order 21, Rule 97, if the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by a person claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor, the Court shall make an order dismissing the application. The party against whom an order is made under this rule may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to present possession of the property; but subject to the result of such suit the order shall be conclusive. Once a year is allowed