J U D G M E N T

Respondents 1 and 2 are the decree holders who preferred R.C.P.No.33/2013 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam for an order of eviction against the remaining respondents imputing tenancy right on them and obtained an order of eviction on 21.10.2014 under Section 11(2) (b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

2. The appellant is the claim petitioner in E.A.No.21/2015 in E.P.No.154/2014 of the Munsiff's Court, Ponnani. The aforesaid petition is filed by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming independent right over the residential premises bearing Door No.255 in Ward No.32 of Ponnani Municipality. By the order dated 25.11.2017, the learned Munsiff dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred first appeal before the Sub Court, Tirur. The first appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 30.7.2021 in AS 68/2017 of the Sub Court, Tirur. Hence, this Execution Second Appeal.

3. The claim petitioner contends that the rent control proceedings is collusive in nature between the parties and the order of eviction passed therein is not executable as against her. She would contend that her husband Kumaran and his father and others were residing in the aforesaid property extending to 10 cents comprised in Re-Sy.No.173/2 of Pallapram Desom. After the expiry of the father-in- law of the appellant, her husband applied for fixity of tenure before the Land Tribunal, Ponnani in O.A.No.1875/1972 and her husband obtained purchase certificate in respect of the property from Ponnani Land Tribunal. The owner of the aforesaid property is one Veluthedathu Moithutti Haji. As requested by the land owner, late Kumaran agreed to shift his right to somewhere. Mr.Moithutti offered to purchase residential plot to late Kumaran. Adhering to the request of Mr.Moithutti, her husband Kumaran conveyed the property covered under the Purchase Certificate No.422/74 in favour of Moithutti as per Ext.A1 dated 3.2.1975. Mr.Moithutti was not having convenient property to shift the aforesaid right obtained by late Kumaran and hence the arrangement made therein was that the purchase price for Ext.A1 document will be given for purchasing another convenient residential property for shifting the right.

4. According to the appellant, it is based on such an arrangement that the purchase price was paid by Mr.Moithutti to late Karthyayani, who is none other than the mother of respondents 1 and 2, who instituted the rent control proceedings as landlords. Regarding the payment of consideration rendered in Ext.A1 sale deed, late Moithutti and late Karthyayani entered into an agreement on 11.11.1974 in which late Kumaran, husband of late Karthyayani and late Damodharan Vaidhyan were also made as witnesses. As per the agreement, total consideration for the claim petition schedule premises were fixed at Rs.1800/- and out of which Rs.1600/- was received by late Karthyayani and the balance amount of Rs.200/- was subsequently received by late Karathyayani. Therefore, the claim petitioner contends that late Kumaran was put in possession of the petition schedule premises and he had erected a hut therein to reside along with his family. The appellant/claim petitioner further contends that the hut was demolished and a new residential building was constructed in the petition schedule property by expending an amount of Rs.9000/- in 1978. According to the appellant, late Kumaran paid land tax and subsequent to his demise, the appellant paid tax in respect of the property. The appellant also claims title by adverse possession and limitation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant never received any notice or summons from any court of law. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on 17.1.2015, the first respondent along with the Police Officials came to the petition schedule premises and attempted to