Judgment :- Petitioner moved E. A. No. 2/77 in E. P. No. 13/69 in O. S. No. 2/64 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Androth for restitution of the properties delivered over to the respondents as per the order passed by the learned Munsiff which was set aside by this court and affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court. Learned Munsiff, by the impugned order, rejected that prayer. Hence this revision petition. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows: Petitioner and one Muthukoya Thangal, predecessor in interest of the respondents, belonged to a common tarward by name Biyyamada tarward. It consisted of three tavathies. One tavazhi, viz., Biyyamada tavazhi became extinct long ago. Petitioner belongs to Monthrappally Padipura tavazhy. Muthukoya Thangal, the predecessor in interest of the respondents, was the sole surviving member of the third branch, Pokkerkalhiyammada tavazhy. Properties belonging to common tarwad, were allotted to two tavazhies, subject to the stipulation that in case of one branch becoming extinct, property of that branch will revert to the other branch. It was also provided that it shall not be competent for the members of either branch to transfer the properties by way of sale, gift or even by mortgage. After the said partition on 27.7.60, Muthukoya Thangal executed a gift deed in favour of the respondents herein in relation to 13 items of properties. Petitioner herein questioned that gift deed by filing O. S. No. 6/62 in the Amin's Court and prayed for a declaration that the gift deed is void. Suit was subsequently transferred to the Administrator's Court in accordance with the provisions in the Locative Islands and Mini coy Regulation, 1912. On 18.9.1962, the Administrator decreed the suit. That decree was quashed by this Court in O. P. No. 29/63 filed by Muthukoya Thangal. This court rendered the matter for fresh trial. Suit, on remand, was renumbered as O. S. No. 2/64 on the file of the Administrator's Court. While that suit was pending trial, Muthukoya Thangal passed away on 1.4.1965. Administrator decreed the suit on 4.4.1965 and declared the gift executed by Muthukoya Thangal as invalid. That decision of the Administrator was challenged before this Court by the respondents herein in O. P. No. 1613/65. A learned single judge, on 1.11.1966, dismissed the Original Petition as not maintainable. While that suit was pending trial, Muthukoya Thangal passed away on 1.4.1965. Administrator decreed the suit on 4.4.1965 and declared the gift executed by Muthukoya Thangal as invalid. That decision of the Administrator was challenged before this Court by the respondents herein in O. P. No. 1613/65. A learned single judge, on 1.11.1966, dismissed the Original Petition as not maintainable. Respondents herein took up the matter in appeal before Division Bench. Division Bench dismissed the same. Thereupon, respondents herein filed C. M. A. No. 150767 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the decision of the Administrator and remanded the matter to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kavathi for fresh trial in terms of the provisions contained in S.25(2) of Regulation 9 of 1965. Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. That was challenged before this Court in C. M. A. No. 66/70. This Court by judgment dated 3,11.1971, dismissed that C. M. A. That decision has become final. 3. Muthukoya Thangal executed an unregistered gift deed dated 14.3.1964 in respect of another 20 items of properties in favour of the respondents herein. Those items of properties were not the subject matter of O. S.2/64. In respect of those items of properties, after the death of Muthukoya Thangal, Tahsildar took the view that there is scramble for possession and so, they should be taken into Government custody. Accordingly, the remaining 20 items of properties dealt with by Muthukoya Thangal in the unregistered gift deed of 14.3.64, were taken into Government custody. 4. It has now come out in evidence that in respect of the properties held by Muthukoya Thangal, as the last surviving member of the third branch of the tarwad, the members of the tarwad instituted O. S. No. 2/ 72 for a declaration of their title to the property and for partitioning the same. That suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge's Court holding that all the 33 items of properties held by Muthukoya Tahngal are Jarwad properties and his personal properties which could be dealt with by him. That decision was challenged before this Court in A. S. No. 341/83 by the respondents herein. That suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge's Court holding that all the 33 items of properties held by Muthukoya Tahngal are Jarwad properties and his personal properties which could be dealt with by him. That decision was challenged before this Court in A. S. No. 341/83 by the respondents herein. A learned single judge of this court, while disposing of that appeal, took the view that items 1 to 13 are not tarwad properties as the claim in respect of those items is barred by res judicial by the decision in O. S. No. 2/64 as confirmed by this Court in C. M. /oA. No. 66/70. Regarding items 14 to 33, it was held that they are tarwad properties and not the separate properties of Muthukoya Thangal. Petitioner herein has preferred A. F. A. No. 94/93 against the decision in A. S. No. 341/83 wherein it has been held that the claim in respect of items 1 to 13 is barred by res judicata. Respondents herein challenged that part of the judgment in A. S: No. 341/83 related to items 14 to 33, which went against item by preferring A. E.A. No. 10/94. Both appeals are now pending before this Court. 5. As stated earlier, O. S. No. 6/62 was remanded to the Administrator's court for fresh decision as per the judgment of this Court in O. P. No. 29/63. On remand, it was renumbered as O. S. No. 2/64. Administrator, by judgment dated 4.4.1965, decreed the suit declaring that Muthukoya Thangal had no right to gift items 1 to 13 in favour of the present respondents. On 5.4.1965, petitioner herein moved an application before the Tahsildar for restraining the respondents herein from entering into the properties which were the subject matter in O. S. No. 2/64 as well as the 20 other items in respect of which Mutliukoya Thangal purported to create another gift deed. He also prayed that he may be allowed to enter into possession of all items of properties left behind by Thangal. Tahsildar passed orders to the effect that in respect of items 1 to 13 petitioner should move the Administrator and in relation to the other 20 items neither petitioner nor respondents herein should enter into those items and they should be taken into Government custody. Tahsildar passed orders to the effect that in respect of items 1 to 13 petitioner should move the Administrator and in relation to the other 20 items neither petitioner nor respondents herein should enter into those items and they should be taken into Government custody. On 2.6.1965 petitioner filed an application before Tahsildar inter al is praying for getting possession of all the 33 items of properties. Tahsildar entertained that application as E. P. No. 9/65. On 8.6.1965, Tahsildar directed the Amin to deliver over all the 33 items of properties to the petitioner. Pursuant to that order of the Tahsildar, petitioner got actual possession of all the 33 items of properties, on 15.6.1965. 6. The decision of the Administrator in O. S. No. 2/64 was set aside by this Court on 19.2.1969 by judgment in C. M. A. No. 150/67. There upon, respondents herein filed E. P. No. 13/69 in the Munsiff s Court under S.144 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that all the 33 items should be re-delivered to them by way of restitution. In that application, which was filed on 5.4.1969, Munsiff ordered notice on 7.4.1969. Petitioner herein appeared before the learned Munsiff on 10.4.1969. He was directed to file counter on 11.4.1969. On his filing the counter on 11.4.1969, learned Munsiff heard the arguments on that day itself. On 15.4.1969, Munsiff passed orders directing restitution by re-delivery of all the 33 items to the respondents herein with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3.000/- per year. Pursuant to mat order, re-delivery was promptly effected. Action of the Munsiff in ordering re-delivery was challenged before the Subordinate Judge, but without success. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S. A. No. 1119 of 1969. That appeal was allowed by this Court on 23.10.70. Orders passed by Courts below were set aside and E.P.I 3/69 was remanded to the Munsiff s Court for fresh disposal. After remand, contentions raised by the petitioner including that on the jurisdiction of the Munsiff s Court to grant restitution were negatived by Munsiff s Court by order dated 9.3.1971. That court took the view that petitioner got possession of all the 33 items of properties in execution of the decree in O. S.2/64. Against that decision, petitioner filed A. S. No. 22/71 before the Subordinate Judge' s: Court. That Court confirmed the order passed by the Munsiff. That court took the view that petitioner got possession of all the 33 items of properties in execution of the decree in O. S.2/64. Against that decision, petitioner filed A. S. No. 22/71 before the Subordinate Judge' s: Court. That Court confirmed the order passed by the Munsiff. At last, the issue came before this court in S.A. No. 147/73 (Alta Koya v. Kunhi Seethi Koya & others-1977 KLT 570). This Court allowed the appeal holding that the order passed by the learned Munsiff is, illegal and without jurisdiction. For a proper understanding of the finding entered by the Division Bench, I read para. 13 of that judgment: "Further, a proceeding for execution of the decree passed by the Administrator's court in O. S. No. 2 of 1964 could have been instituted under the law in force in the Islands in June, 1965 only before the Administrator himself or before the Amin's Court. The order passed by the Tahsildar in Ext. B4 clearly indicates that it was in the nature of an executive direction by the Tahsildar to the Amin in his capacity as a subordinate executive officer. We are unable to agree with the interpretation placed on the said order by the Subordinate Judge, that it was a judicial order passed by (lie Tahsildar functioning to the Amin. The direction contained in the order passed by the Tahsildar that the Amin should deliver the properties and report to the Tahsildar within five days is completely inconsistent with the theory that what was done under the order was to transfer the execution proceedings from the Tahsildar's Court to the Amin's Court. As already observed, the Tahsildar was not competent to function as a court at the relevant me and viewed against that background the direction contained in Ext. B4 is quite understandable as the executive order passed by a superior officer to his subordinate and this to our mind appear to have been the true character of that proceeding. In respect of the thirty three items the Tahsildar had previously .issued certain interim executive directions while dealing with the petition Ext. B6. As regards the properties that formed the subject matter of O. S. No. 2 of 1964 those interim directions were intended to be in force until the dispute between the parties was pronounced upon by the Administrator's Court. B6. As regards the properties that formed the subject matter of O. S. No. 2 of 1964 those interim directions were intended to be in force until the dispute between the parties was pronounced upon by the Administrator's Court. What was done by the Tahsildar as per the order Ext. B4 was to issue further executive directions in the matter of possession of the properties on the basis of the decree passed by the Administrator's Court inO.S. No.2 of 1964. We accordingly set aside the finding of the court below that the plaintiff had come into possession of the thirty three items of properties by the process of delivery given to him by a court in execution of the decree passed in O. S. No.2 of 1964". (Emphasis added) In the light of the above finding, their Lordships took the view that there was no necessity to consider any further question. But since arguments were advanced on (he basis of Regulation 9 of 1965, their Lordships proceeded to consider the legal aspects as well. This is evident from the observation: "In the light of the above conclusion reached by us (paragraph 13 quoted above) on the basis of which the appellant (petitioner herein) is entitled to succeed in this second appeal it is really unnecessary for us to consider the further questions as to whether in respect of the twenty items not covered by the decree in O. S. No. 2 of 1964 the order passed in Ext, B4 could be said to have been passed in execution of the 'decree and whether after coming into force of Regulation 9 of 1965 the Munsiff s Court, Androth jurisdiction to entertain the restitution petition out of which this second appeal has arisen". Dealing with legal questions, their Lordships concluded that the Munsiff Court was not the court of the first instance and so, the order passed by the Munsiff s Court is unsustainable. This conclusion was arrived at on an assumption that the properties had been delivered over to the plaintiff in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 2/64. Even on the basis of that assumption, this court held that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to order restitution. It is worthwhile to state that the said assumption made by the Bench was itself not based on facts as admitted in the judgment. Even on the basis of that assumption, this court held that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to order restitution. It is worthwhile to state that the said assumption made by the Bench was itself not based on facts as admitted in the judgment. This matter was taken to the Supreme Court in. Civil Appeal No. 2422/77. Their Lordships concurred with the view expressed by this court on the question of law, viz., whether the Munsiff Court, Androth had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by respondents herein for restitution. 7. Asper the decision in S. A. No. 147/73, it is crystal clear that petitioner got possession of all the 33 items of properties by virtue of the executive order passed by the Tahsildar on the application dated 2.6.1965 filed by the petitioner herein. It has also come out that the properties delivered over pursuant to the executive order passed by the Tahsildar cannot be directed to be re-delivered invoking the provisions contained in S.144 or for that matter S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is more so, because the properties were not delivered over to the petitioner herein, plaintiff in O. S. No. 2164, in execution of any decree of a civil court. Nor were the properties delivered over by any civil court. 8. O. S. No. 2/64 was a suit for declaration that the gift deed executed by Muthukoya Thangal in respect of items 1 to 13 is invalid. Declaration, as prayed for, was granted by the court. It was not an executable decree that was passed by the court. Tahsildar, by an executive order, delivered items 1 to 13 to the petitioner. On the death of Muthukoya Thangal, the other 20 items of properties left behind by him were taken into Government custody, pursuant to an order passed by the Tahsildar. Those properties, which were thus in the possession of the Government, were also handed over to the petitioner by the Tahsildar. Thus, petitioner got possession of 33 items of properties, pursuant to the executive order passed by the Tahsildar, which was executed by the Amin. 9. If any wrong has been done by a court and on account of that a person has been enriched, on correction of that error he should be directed to disgorge the benefit obtained by him. Thus, petitioner got possession of 33 items of properties, pursuant to the executive order passed by the Tahsildar, which was executed by the Amin. 9. If any wrong has been done by a court and on account of that a person has been enriched, on correction of that error he should be directed to disgorge the benefit obtained by him. Like wise if in execution of a decree the decree holder was put in possession of property, on the reversal of that decree the property should be restored to the person from whom it was delivered over. It is one of the first and predominant duty of any court to take care that its acts do not injure or harm any of the parties before it. If any injury was caused to one of the parties on account of an act done by court, the court is bound to undo that wrong. On reversal of a judgment, law raises an obligation on the party, who received the benefit of the erroneous decision, to make restitution to the other party for what he lost. It is the duty of court to enforce that obligation. Thus principle will be of no avail as against a party to the suit who gels the property otherwise than under the decree or order of the court. As against "him no proceedings by way of restitution can be initiated. In the instant case, petitioner got 33 items of properties by virtue of an executive order passed by Tahsildar. So, no proceedings for restitution can be initiated against him. The properties concerned in this proceedings were delivered over to the respondents, pursuant to the order passed by the Munsiff in E. P. No. 13/69. The order of the Munsiff has been held by this Court as an invalid one. Pursuant to that invalid order, respondents have been put in possession. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the wrong committed by the Munsiff in passing the order dated 15.4.1969 has to be undone or not. When petitioner sought the help of the Munsiff to be placed in the same position as he was prior to 15.4.1969, the date of the illegal order, Munsiff took the view that he has no jurisdiction to entertain that application, because he is not the court of the first instance. When petitioner sought the help of the Munsiff to be placed in the same position as he was prior to 15.4.1969, the date of the illegal order, Munsiff took the view that he has no jurisdiction to entertain that application, because he is not the court of the first instance. That issue is not a relevant aspect to be looked into. Petitioner who got possession of the properties through Tahsildar independent of any order of court was disposed by the erroneous order passed by Munsiff. When that order has been set aside Munsiff was bound to restore possession to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel representing the respondents, the legal heirs of Muthukoya Thangal, raised the following contentions. Muthukoya Thangal was having the right over all the 33 items of properties. At first, he gifted 13 items in favour of the respondents. Gift was challenged by the petitioner in O. S. No. 6/62, which was renumbered as O. S. No. 2/64 before the Administrator's Court. Though the Administrator decreed the suit, that decree was set aside by this-Court in G. M. A. No. 150/67. It was pursuant to the decree passed by the Administrator's Court, petitioner got possession of all the items of properties. When that decree has been set aside, respondents are entitled to get restitution. They in fact got restitution. That order putting them back in possession, even though found to be illegal, is not to be interfered with on the ground that they are the persons legally entitled to those properties. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits and to do justice to the parties, it is contended that those items of properties are not to be delivered over to the petitioner. According to counsel, even if the properties are now delivered over, respondents are to get them back on the basis of their title. Regarding the 20 items of properties also, it is contended that they belonged to Muthukoya Thangal and Muthukoya Thangal gifted those items to the respondents. Petitioner herein has not established his title to those items before any court. No decree has been obtained by him declaring his title in respect of these items of properties. Regarding the 20 items of properties also, it is contended that they belonged to Muthukoya Thangal and Muthukoya Thangal gifted those items to the respondents. Petitioner herein has not established his title to those items before any court. No decree has been obtained by him declaring his title in respect of these items of properties. Viewed in this light, according to learned counsel representing the respondents, the respondents, who are the legal owners of the properties, should hot be divested of those properties on the ground that the order passed by the Munsiff s Court in E. P. No. 13/69 is invalid. 11.I am not impressed with the above arguments advanced,by the learned counsel. That argument proceeds on the wrong premise that petitioner got the properties in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 2/64 When that wrong assumption is ignored, and the order passed by the Munsiff in E. P. No. 13/69 is found to be illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioner should be put back in possession of the properties. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in 1977 KLT. 570, learned Munsiff clearly erred in ordering restitution in E. P. No. 13/69. It was a wrong order. Pursuant to that wrong order, properties in the possession of the petitioner were delivered over to the respondents. Earlier, petitioner got possession of all items of properties, not by virtue of any order of civil court, but pursuant to an executive order passed by the Tahsildar. Possession obtained by petitioner pursuant to the order of Tahsildar should not have been interfered with by the Munsiff. But wrongly, Munsiff interfered with that possession. The wrong committed by the Munsiff has to be undone. Parties must be placed in the same position as they were prior to the order in E. P. No. 13/69. Viewed in this light, f find it difficult to uphold the order passed by the learned Munsiff. 12. As the matters stand at present, no court has entered a finding in favour of the respondents, on their claim of title to the properties. So, I am not in a position to hold that respondents are legally entitled to be in possession of those properties. Until respondents get their right to these properties settled, they cannot be considered as persons entitled to possession. So, I am not in a position to hold that respondents are legally entitled to be in possession of those properties. Until respondents get their right to these properties settled, they cannot be considered as persons entitled to possession. Respondents have not shown that petitioner who is claiming restitution is bound to restore the properties to them. Only when the respondents establish their right to get back possession from the petitioner can they object petitioner's prayer for restitution. 13. Munsiff should have undone the wrong committed by him in effecting delivery of 33 items of properties to the respondents in E. P. No. 13/69. Impugned order is set aside and the Munsiff is directed to dispose of E. A. No. 2/77 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. Since the matter is a long pending one, Munsiff is directed to pass final order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision petition is ordered in the above terms. Parties are directed to appear before the Munsiff s Court on 1.1.1996. Issue photo copy on usual terms.