The determination of the right, title, or interest of the obstructor in an obstruction case should be adjudicated by the executing court under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C.

1. The appellant herein is a third party to the proceedings pending before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu and he filed the present appeal aggrieved over the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, in E.A.No.231 of 2010 in E.P.No.19 of 2009 in O.S.No.104 of 2007, directing the bailiff to remove the obstructor, the appellant herein, from the suit property, namely, 98 cents comprised in old Survey No.134/3 and new Survey No.134/69 of Perungalathur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, with a compound wall on all sides and trees.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal, are as follows:

It is the case of the appellant that he purchased the suit property from one A.V.Padmanabhan, the grandson of A.Veeraraghava Iyengar, under a Sale Deed dated 19.07.2006 and from three other persons, who are also claiming ownership over the said property, under a Ratification Deed dated 08.02.2007. Thus, by virtue of the said sale deed and the ratification deed, the appellant is the owner of the said property and after purchase, he built a small house for watchman and a store room and planted about 50 coconut saplings and he also made improvements in the suit property, such as digging a bore well, obtaining power supply from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Perungalathur,installing 1-1/2 horsepower motor and apart from that, he constructed a pucca compound wall, the thickness of which is 9 inches with the height of 7-1/2 feet, surrounding the property, to avoid any encroachment. The servant quarters and the store room were assessed to house tax by the Perungalathur Town Panchayat and the door number was also allotted. Patta was also given in the name of the appellant in respect of the suit property.

3. In the said situation, on 21.09.2010, the respondents herein, by obtaining an order in E.A.No.231 of 2010 in E.P.No.19 of 2009 in O.S.No.104 of 2007, which is the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs against respondents 3 and 4 as the defendants, removed the obstructor (the appellant herein) from the suit property claiming the same as their ancestral property and demolished the compound wall, uprooted the coconut saplings and took the possession of the suit property forcibly. Thereafter only, the appellant, who was not aware of the suit proceedings and the subsequent execution proceedings, came to know about the following facts.

(a) Respondents 1 to 3 are the children of one K.V.Rama Reddy, son of Venkata Perumal Reddy, and the 4th respondent is the wife of the 3rd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2, in connivance with respondents 3 and 4, filed a suit in O.S.104 of 2007 on 07.03.2007 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, for a preliminary decree of partition in respect of the suit property stating that the same is their ancestral property since they have inherited the same from their great grandfather. After filing the said suit, respondents 1 and 2 have filed another suit in O.S.91 of 2007 on 12th March, 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, as against respondents 3 and 4, A.V.Padmanaban (the vendor of the appellant) and the appellant as defendants 1 to 4 and also by adding other public officials as defendants 5 to 10 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant (vendor of the appellant) in favour of the appellant herein as illegal and null and void and also for an injunction restraining the appellant and his vendor from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was filed with the false allegation as if respondents 3 and 4 herein (defendants 1 and 2 therein) are in possession of the suit property, though the appellant is in possession of the suit property from the date of purchase from A.V.Padmabahan. In the subsequent suit, namely, O.S.91 of 2007, the plaintiffs had suppressed the fact about the filing of the earlier suit O.S.No.104