JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2025

This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2023 in E.A.No.64 of 2013 in E.P.No.148 of 2006 in O.S.No.267 of 2005 of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad. Appellant was the petitioner/third party in the E.A. Respondents were the respondents in the E.A. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the E.A.

2. Petitioner (appellant) is a third party in the suit proceedings. He had filed the E.A., which is a claim petition invoking Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). He contended that the petition schedule property was purchased by him in the year 2006 for valuable consideration from one Mariyamma Joseph and her four children, including the judgment debtor/1^st respondent, who is the co-owner and power of attorney holder of the other sharers. Petitioner claimed that since 2006, he has been in actual ownership, physical possession and peaceful enjoyment of the petition schedule property and had been remitting land tax regularly. He has also obtained a possession certificate from the Village Office, and he has effected considerable improvements in the property. Before the purchase of th