Subsequent execution petition is an application for restoration of original eviction petition.

1. Except C.R.P. No. 1135 of 1990, the other matters, namely, C.R.P. Nos. 591 and 592 of 1984 and C.M.A. No. 97 of 1984 arise from a common order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in O.S. No. 148 of 1971. C.R.P. No. 591 of 1984 arises from E.A. No. 287 of 1981; C.R.P. No. 592 of 1984 arises from E.A. No. 224 of 1981 and C.M.A. No. 97 of 1984 arises from E.A. No.

501 of 1980 in the above suit. C.R.P. No. 1135 of 1990 also arises from the same suit, but it arises from E. A. No. 476 of 1986 against the Order passed thereon, on 20.7.1987.

2. The material facts of the case can be summarised as follows:—

The plaint schedule property which is the subject matter of these proceedings originally belonged to late Ramasamydoss who died on 7.1.1964. He died as a debtor and some of his legal representatives filed a suit O.S. No. 26 of 1965, on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin, for administration of the estate and for taking accounts. Various creditors were also made parties to the suit, and all the properties belonging to him were also scheduled, which included his self acquired properties and also properties over which he had an undivided share. In that suit, an Advocate was appointed as an Administrator, who took possession of the properties which included the subject matter of these proceedings. While the suit was pending, another suit was filed before the Sub Court, Tuticorin as O.S. No. 148 of 1971, by one Emperumalsami Naicker on the basis of a simple mortgage executed by the deceased. In that suit, the 11th defendant was the Administrator appointed in O.S. No. 26 of 1965. A preliminary decree was passed in that case on 29.8.1972, and final decree was also passed on 8.10.1973 for sale. While so, in the administration suit O.S. No. 26 of 1965, the plaint property was brought to sale by the Administrator and the wife of the second defendant in the mortgage suit, one Chandra, was the highest bidder. The Administrator moved the Sub Court for accepting the bid of Chandra for which various objections were raised and ultimately, as per order dated 15.7.1977, the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin confirmed the sale in favour of Chandra. That order has become final. By virtue of that sale, Chandra became the purchaser of the property, which is the subject matter of these proceedings. It may be noted that one Emperumalsami Naicker, who is the 6th defendant in O.S. No. 26 of 1965 filed serious objection against the confirmation in favour of Chandra. It was after rejecting his objection, the sale was confirmed. The relevancy of the objection will be considered in the subsequent stages of this Order.

3. Thereafter, pursuant to the final decree in the mortgage suit O.S. No. 148 of 1971, the very same property was brought to sale on 11.1.1978, auction was held and the property was sold. An application under O. 21, R. 90, C.P.C. was filed by Chandra on 3.2.1978 alleging that the auction in the mortgage suit is bad and that she has purchased the property from the Administrator, and even before the sale in her favour, she was in possession of the property as lessee under the Administrator. It was further stated in that Application that the decree holder as well as auction purchaser were aware of the sale in her favour, and according to her, there cannot be two sales in respect of the same property. Various other grounds under O. 21, R. 90, C.P.C. were also stated therein. When that Application was filed, security had to be furnished, and she claimed exemption from furnishing security by filing E.A. No. 104 of 1978. That application was dismissed, and consequently her application under O. 21, R. 90, C.P.C. which was unnumbered then also could not be taken into consideration. Against the order in E.A. No. 104 of 1978, she filed C.R.P. No. 1631 of 1978. This Court, as per order dated 10.8.1978, set aside the order and directed the matter to be considered afresh. She also filed E.A. No. 110/78 to accept third party security. Even aft