N. SESHASAYEE, J.

1. John obstructed delivery of possession of a certain property in execution of a decree passed in O.S.5677/2006, but was unsuccessful in defending a petition in E.A.No.2047/2015 in E.P.No.1637/2014, for removing the obstruction which the decree holder had filed for delivery of the property under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Aggrieved by the same, John has come before this Court.

2. A concise narration of preludial facts for a convenient appreciation of what are to follow next are stated now:

In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotted the suit property to a certain Mani. In 1992, Mani was stated to have been murdered.

Mani's widow was Vasanthi and they have two children. After Mani's demise, Vasanthi had first laid a suit in O.S.No.534 of 1996 on the file of XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for a decree against the Slum Clearance Board and another Mathivadhanam, for a decree of prohibitory injunction, and on 16.04.2001 this suit was dismissed.

Subsequently, Vasanthi and her children had laid a suit in O.S.No.5677 of 2006, (the decree passed in which has become the subject matter of intended delivery and the reactionary obstruction now under consideration). This suit was instituted against certain Kumar (first defendant), one Kanthimathi (second defendant ), another Mehanathan (third defendant) besides, the Slum Clearance Board (4th defendant). Of them, Kumar is stated to be one of the sons of Mathivathanam referred to earlier. The suit is laid for declaration of plaintiffs' title and delivery of property.

The quintessence of the plaint allegation was that the property in question was originally allotted to Mani, that Mani had died, wherein after the family had moved to live away from the suit property briefly and sensing an opportunity, the defendants fabricated some document, on the strength of which plaintiffs' title was challenged.

In the suit, Kumar, Mehanathan and the Slum Clearance Board (fourth defendant) remained exparte. Second defendant, Kanthimathi alone appeared before the Court, but even she did not offer any contest. She, in effect had contended in her written statement that her husband Murugesan was appointed as a watchman by Mathivathanam and her heirs, and that she had no right in the suit property. As to be expected, the suit was decreed. In fitness of things, the litigation should have ended there. But, Kanthimathi, the non-contesting contestant in the suit, preferred A.S.No.150 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, and only to ensure that the appeal too was dismissed. Kanthimathi would not stop there. She preferred S.A.No.1485 of 2011 before this Court, where this Court in its judgment dated 12.3.2015, was constrained to describe Kanthimathi as an unscrupulous litigant. Holding that the plaintiffs (Vasanthi and her children) have not produced any evidence that the suit property had been transferred in their names, this Court modified the decree of the Courts below and refused to declare plaintiffs' title over to the suit property, but proceeded to grant a decree for delivery of the property.

3. It is this decree for delivery of the property sans any decree declaring plaintiffs' title was put to execution in E.P.No.1637 of 2014. When the Court bailiff went to the spot for effecting delivery, John obstructed. As referred to in the opening paragraph, the decree holder/plaintiffs filed E.A.No.2047 of 2015 for removing the obstruction. John resisted.

4. John's contentions in his counter are as follows :

The property admeasuring 950 sq.ft. in Plot No.1, Door No.31, Anna Colony, Besant Nagar was allotted to Mani. Mani had passed away in 1992 and he had sold the property to Mathivathanam. Thereafter, Mathivathanam had applied to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for transfer of the allotment in her favour. On 21.03.1995, the allotment was indeed transferred by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour of Mathivathanam. Vasanthi and her children moved the S