JUDGMENT :

K. KALYANASUNDARAM, J.

1. As the issues involved in these Appeals are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. Assailing the common Judgment/Order passed by the Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry in A.S. Nos. 15 of 2017 and 22 of 2017, the present Appeals have been filed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to these Appeals would run thus:

The First Respondent-Vengadachalam [hereinafter called as “Agreement-holder”] had entered into an Agreement of Sale, dated 9.1.1978 with Louis Sinnaya Arokiasamy and Dr. Louis Pragasam Cannaiya, the Appellants in S.A. Nos. 22 of 2020 and 26 of 2020 [hereinafter called as “original Owners”] to purchase the property measuring an extent of 2 kanis and 39 Kuzhis in Cadastre No. 492 for a total Sale consideration of Rs. 37,000. According to the Agreement-holder, he was ready and willing to perform his part of Contract, but the original Owners failed to come forward to execute the Sale-Deed. Hence, a Suit in O.S. No. 168 of 1979 was instituted for Specific Performance of the agreement, dated 9.1.1978. It appears that after contest, the Suit came to be decreed on 19.9.1980. In E.P. No. 360 of 1980, a Sale-Deed was executed through Court in favour of the Agreement-holder and it was registered as Document No. 1367 of 1981. It is not in dispute that the Decree and Judgment made in O.S. No. 168 of 1979 had become final as no Appeal was preferred challenging the same.

3. One Mrs. Rathina Mary, the sister of the original Owners executed a Release Deed, dated 9.7.1983 releasing her share in Cadastre No. 492 in favour of the Agreement-holder. It is the case of the Agreement-holder that major portion of the Suit property was handed over in pursuance of the Decree in O.S. No. 168 of 1979, but a portion was occupied by one Gundu Govindasamy claiming to be the tenant of the original Owners. Since he refused to hand over vacant possession, the Agreement-holder filed O.S. No. 460 of 1982 for Declaration of Title to ‘A’ Schedule property and for Recovery of possession of ‘B’ Schedule property i.e. three portions mentioned as ‘A’ and ‘B’ and ‘C’ in the Plaint Plan. The Suit was resisted by the said Gundu Govindasamy contending that he is a Cultivating Tenant of the Suit property and the description is not correct and the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In I.A. No. 3016 of 1984, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to carry out measurement of the Suit with the help of a Surveyor. The Report and Sketch were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor were examined as Witnesses. After analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court decreed the Suit on 24.02.1988 in accordance with the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner and the Plan was directed to be part and parcel of the Decree.

4. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree, Gundu Govindasamy preferred an Appeal before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in A.S. No. 104 of 1988. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 5.4.1989. Challenging the same, the Second Appeal No. 1389 of 1989 was filed and the same was dismissed by this Court on 22.6.2000.

5. Thereupon, Execution Petition No. 185 of 2000 was filed for delivery of possession of the Suit Schedule property. It seems that delivery was objected by one Munusamy and others. Hence, E.A. No. 240 of 2001 was filed under Order 21, Rule 97 of CPC for removal of obstruction. The said E.A. contested on the ground that the Suit property was not part of the Sale-Deed and the Decree passed in O.S. No. 460 of 1982. It appears, at that juncture, the Judgment-debtor Gundu Govindasamy passed away and his Legal Heirs were brought on record. The Executing Court allowed E.A. No. 240 of 2001, by its order dated 17.11.2008. Aggrieved over the same, the obstructors preferred an Appeal before the Principal Sub-Court, Puducherry in A.S. No. 34 of 2008. The Appeal was dismis