Judgment : 1. Ex. Second Appeal 15/2010 is filed by Smt. Rajamma who obstructed the delivery of the property in E.P. 44 of 2001. The appellants in other appeals Ex.S.A.13/2010 and 14/2010 are the assignees under Rajamma mentioned above. Execution Petitions were filed by the sharers to whom property shown in that E.P.44/2001 was allotted. Two other obstruction petitions were also filed in E.P.44/2001. The other two petitions were filed by the assignees under Rajamma. All the three petitions filed under Rule 97 of Order XXI were disposed of by the Execution Court by a common order. 2. Before the Execution Court P.W.1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant/the appellants herein. On behalf of the decree holder DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B6 series were marked. Advocate Commissioner’s reports and sketch were marked as Exts.C1, C1(a) and C2. Besides Exts.X1 to X3 were also marked. 3. The Execution Court found that Rajamma had not set up any specific claim with respect to any portion of the property covered by the final decree in O.S.328/1987 and that she did not produce any convincing evidence to prove her right, title or interest over the property comprised in Sy.Nos.223/6 and 223/5. It was also found that Rajamma had not taken delivery of the property allegedly decreed pursuant to Ext.A2 compromise. The Execution Court also found that the claim petitioner in E.A.133/2003 claimed title on the strength of Ext.A8 sale deed dated 5-4-1966. That was a document executed by Harihara Iyer and his wife Rajamma in favour of one Maveli Vareeth and his grandchildren. It was found that Harihara Iyer or his wife Rajamma did not obtain right over the property and so their assignees also did not get any right over the property on the strength of Ext.A8. 4. The claim petitioner in E.A.132/2003 claimed right over the property on the strength of an assignment deed executed by the daughter of one Maveli Jacob on 19-12-2000. 5. The suit for partition was originally filed before Principal Sub Court, North Paravur. After it was transferred, the suit was renumbered in the Munsiff’s Court, Aluva as O.S.328/1987. It was in that case a preliminary decree was passed, pursuant whereto a final decree was passed. The plaint schedule property mentioned therein measures 41.805 cents in Sy.Nos.223/5 and 223/6 of Aluva Village. After it was transferred, the suit was renumbered in the Munsiff’s Court, Aluva as O.S.328/1987. It was in that case a preliminary decree was passed, pursuant whereto a final decree was passed. The plaint schedule property mentioned therein measures 41.805 cents in Sy.Nos.223/5 and 223/6 of Aluva Village. In terms of the preliminary decree, the Commissioner divided the property into 20 plots. Based on the Commissioner’s report, the final decree was passed. The sharers to whom different plots were allotted in the final decree applied for execution of the decree. When the Amin deputed by the Execution Court went to effect delivery of the different plots to the decree holders/respondents herein on 19-6-2003 there was obstruction regarding plot Nos.16, 17 and 18. That fact was reported by the Amin to the Execution Court on 20-6-2003. While so, three claim petitions were filed by the appellants in the three above appeals regarding plot Nos.16, 17 and 18. Those three plots are the subject matter of these three appeals. 6. The total extent of the property involved in the three claims petitions is 8.036 cents, out of which plot No.16 is in Sy.No.223/6 and is having an extent of 2.540 cents. Plot No.17 is in Sy.No.223/5 and its extent is 2.104 cents. Plot No.18 is in Sy.No.223/5 which has an extent of 3.392 cents. 7. E.A. 137/2003 is the application filed by the appellant Smt. Rajamma under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. O.S.320/1987 was the suit for partition of 41.805 cents of land. It was the 6th item in O.S.10/1959. A compromise decree in O.S.10/1959 was passed in 1971. 10th defendant in O.S.10/59 was Neelakanda Iyer who is the father of Harihara Iyer. Rajamma the appellant is the wife of Harihara Iyyer. O.S.11/1959 was filed by Neelakanda Iyer. That suit was dismissed. When Neelakanda Iyer died, his son Harihara Iyer, the husband of the appellant was impleaded as D50th defendant in O.S.10/1959. It was stated that as per the compromise entered into in O.S.10/1959 the 6th item thereto was allotted to the heirs of Achuthan Pillai, the second defendant and defendants 6 and 7 in that suit. Neelakanta Iyer had claimed lease hold right in that item. 8. Respondents contend that the appellant Rajamma had no title to the property claimed in the petition since there was no valid document to prove her title. Neelakanta Iyer had claimed lease hold right in that item. 8. Respondents contend that the appellant Rajamma had no title to the property claimed in the petition since there was no valid document to prove her title. It was also contended that Rajamma did not obtain any right in Sy.No.223/6 since the entire extent in the aforesaid Sy. sub division was included as item No.6 in O.S.10/1959. Rajamma was the 4th defendant in O.S.23/1963. Respondents contend that the decree schedule property which is the subject matter of the Execution Petition in this case was the 6th item allotted to the sharers in O.S.10/1959 to which Neelakanda Iyer the predecessor-in-interest was a party. On the death of Neelakanda Iyer, his son Harihara Iyer, the husband of Rajamma, was impleaded as D50. Hence, Harihara Iyyer or his wife Rajamma cannot claim any right over the disputed property. That apart, Neelakanda Iyer had filed a separate suit as O.S.11/1959 in respect of the aforesaid property claiming independent right over that item. That suit was also dismissed. 9. Accepting the case of the respondents all the claim petitions were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Appeals were filed before the learned Addl. District Judge. The learned Addl. District Judge remanded all the cases to the Execution Court. As against the same, decree holders moved this Court by filing F.A.O.Nos.145/2009, 154 and 155 of 2009. As per a common Judgment this Court set aside the order of remand passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in the three appeals. 10. It was argued before this Court while F.A.O.145/2009 and the other two appeals were pending that all the records were available in the case bundle and so the matter may have to be disposed of on merit after considering the records which were already there on the file. It was held by this Court in the F.A.O thus: “Therefore, the order of remand passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in all these three cases is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Addl. District Court, N. Paravur for fresh hearing and disposal in the light of the facts mentioned above. It was held by this Court in the F.A.O thus: “Therefore, the order of remand passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in all these three cases is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Addl. District Court, N. Paravur for fresh hearing and disposal in the light of the facts mentioned above. I make it clear that the learned Judge has to apply his mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the cases and the documents produced are to be considered, its admissibility, acceptability and relevancy and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. When the evidence is already available on the record who has to start the evidence first does not loom large and the only question to be considered is who is having a better case can be considered and the matter be disposed of”. Hence, after the order of remand was passed by this Court, the learned Addl. District Judge heard all the appeals again and all those appeals were dismissed. 11. The main contention that has been urged by the appellants is that the decree schedule property which is the subject matter of the Execution Petition has not been properly identified. It was stated that the property sought to be delivered in execution does not form part of the decree schedule property in O.S.358/1987. Ext.B1 is the certified copy of the judgment in the final decree application filed in O.S.328/1987. Ext.B2 is the copy of the supplementary report filed in that suit. Ext.A2 is the certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.23/1963 of the Addl. District Court, North Paravur, dated 11-11-1964 based on which the appellants claimed right over the petition schedule property. 12. It is vehemently argued by the learned Sr. counsel for the appellants that if the property has not been properly identified and if there is no evidence to find that the property shown in the execution petition forms part of the property involved in Ext.B1, final decree passed in O.S.328/1987 then the respondents herein cannot execute the decree so far as it relates to the property claimed by the appellants herein as they rely upon Ext.A2 the compromise decree passed in O.S.23/1963. It has already been mentioned that the property shown in the Execution Petition measures 8.036 cents; of which, two plots measuring 2.104 and 3.392 cents are situated in Sy.No.223/5 where as the plot measuring 2.540 cents is comprised in Sy.No.223/6. 13. Paragraph 4 of Ext.A2 compromise deals with the property that was stated to have been allotted to Smt. Rajamma. Paragraph 4 of Ext.A2 reads to the effect that item No.1 therein and the buildings and structures were decided to be given to the 4th defendant therein and that other defendants had agreed to the same. It was further stated that item No.2 along with other items were attached for the arrears of income tax and it was agreed that the petitioner therein or item No.2 mentioned therein will not be liable for the arrears of income tax as the first defendant therein had agreed to reimburse for any loss that may be occasioned for which Item No.1 was provided as a security. It is pointed out by the learned Sr. counsel for the respondents that Rajamma and other persons who were parties to A2 suit had absolutely no right over the petition schedule property. 4th respondent therein is Rajamma, wife of Harihara Iyer. The plaintiff therein was Cardomom Marketing Company, Travancore. The 3rd defendant there in is Harihara Iyer, the husband of Rajamma. Neelakanda Iyer mentioned above and his wife Nagammal were defendants 1 and 2 in that suit. It is submitted by the learned Sr. counsel for the respondents that Neelakanda Iyer was bound by the action taken in O.S.10/1959. Subsequently Neelakanda Iyer died, Harihara Iyer was impleaded as the 50th defendant in that suit and the decree passed therein is binding on him. Rajamma did not set up any separate claim over that property. It is pointed out that as per clause/paragraph 4 of Ext.A2, Cardamom Marketing Company, the plaintiff therein had agreed to surrender their right over the land and buildings situated therein to the 4th defendant Rajamma. But no registered document was executed evidencing relinquishment of the right over the property of the plaintiff therein to the 4th defendant. 14. Clause 4 of Ext.A2 stipulates that the petitioner/plaintiff had surrendered their right to the 4th defendant. But no registered document was executed evidencing relinquishment of the right over the property of the plaintiff therein to the 4th defendant. 14. Clause 4 of Ext.A2 stipulates that the petitioner/plaintiff had surrendered their right to the 4th defendant. But if such a surrender is to be accepted and legally acted upon then there should be a registered document evidencing relinquishment of their right over the immovable property; namely, the land and the buildings situated therein. But no such document was executed. Hence, Ext.A2 cannot confer title to Rajamma, the 4th defendant in Ext.A2. In the schedule to Ext.A2 the property so far as it relates to the one comprised in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6, it is described as: “Out of 75 cents in 223/5, excluding 12 1/2 cents, on the northern side taken for the purpose of road and 81/2 cents of land situated on the north of the road; the balance is 54 cents in 223/5. It is further stated that adding 9 cents being the southern portion the total comes to 63 cents i.e. 54 cents in 223/5 and 9 cents in 223/6”. It is further described therein that in the said property there is a two storeyed old tiled building facing east and also a vehicle shed, cattle shed, compound wall and other structures. Ext.B1 is the certified copy of the order in the final decree application, I.A.No.1626/1995 in O.S.328/1987. The plan showing the property subjected to partition as per that final decree is seen appended to the decree. 15. One Amirudheen, S/o. Moosa and Muhammed Assim, S/o. Kunhali are the petitioners in the final decree. It is stated that they are the assignees from the original sharers. It is stated that they are the assignees from the original sharers. It is stated in the final decree that the yellow shaded plots 1 to 12 shown in Ext.C1 plan appended thereto were allotted to the supplemental plaintiff/ petitioner and that the plots shown in the blue colour shown as item Nos.13 to 18 in that plan were also allotted to the supplemental plaintiff and supplemental defendants 37 to 39. Supplementary Commission report was filed in that case which also forms part of the final decree. Supplementary Commission report was filed in that case which also forms part of the final decree. It shows that the Surveyor was directed to measure and identify 41.805 cents of land comprised in 223/5 and 223/6 from out of 1 acre and 22 cents situated in those survey numbers. The direction was to identify 1 acre 22 cents of land comprised in 223/6 and 223/5 to carve out 41.805 cents from the plots comprised in those two survey numbers. It is seen that the property was identified and that the Commissioner carved out 26.717 cents in 223/6-1, another 9 cents in 223/6-3 and 6.088 cents in 223/5-1 and thus the total extent of 41.85 cents was surveyed and demarcated. The plot comprised in 223/5 as mentioned above; namely 6.088 cents; is situated to the south and west of the two plots comprised in Sy.No.223/6 just mentioned above. The report would further make it clear that out of 41.805 cents of land 10 cents of land was excluded towards as “kudikidappu rights” and the balance 31.805 cents was the actual extent which was then available for petition. It was further stated that the aforesaid 31.805 cents was to be divided allotting 3/10 share to the addl. plaintiff and 7/10 share to the 11th defendant. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner measured and demarcated the plots which are to be allotted to the Addl. plaintiff being the 3/10 share and to the 11th defendant being his 7/10 share. Thus, the Advocate commissioner has demarcated 9.541 cent of land being the 3/10 share of 31.805 cents. The aforesaid plot measuring 9.541 cent was demarcated in yellow colour. It was clarified by the Advocate Commissioner that out of the aforesaid land 1.333 cents of land which is shown as plot 6 in the sketch appended to the final decree, though forms part of the decree schedule property, had been taken in by the road. It was also mentioned that in the plot measuring 9.541 cent of land which was allotted to the plaintiff an extent of 592 sq. links, falls in Sy.No.223/5 also and the entire remaining extent of land falls in Sy.No.223/6. It is also stated in the report accompanying the decree that, 22.264 cents of land being the 7/10 share due to the 11th defendant (from out of 31.805 cents) falls in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6. links, falls in Sy.No.223/5 also and the entire remaining extent of land falls in Sy.No.223/6. It is also stated in the report accompanying the decree that, 22.264 cents of land being the 7/10 share due to the 11th defendant (from out of 31.805 cents) falls in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6. That total extent of 22.264 cents comprised in 223/5 and 223/6 is shown as plots in blue colour as plot Nos.13 to 18. It was further stated that in the said property 2.540 cent of land is comprised in 223/6 and 2.104 cent of land is comprised in 223/5. It was also mentioned that another 3.392 cents of land is in 223/5, besides 592 Sq.links in the very same, Sy.No.223/5. Those are the plots marked as 16, 17 and 18 in the plan appended to the final decree. It is mentioned that the 10 cents of land being the kudikidappu has been demarcated as plots 19 and 20 in the plan referred to above. Ext.B4 is the certified copy of the plan produced in O.S.10 of 1959 so far as it relates to the property involved in that suit and comprised in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6. The red coloured plot ABCDEFGHA is the property comprised in 223/6, the total extent of which was shown as 41.805 cents. It is from out of that 10 cents of land was carved out and shown separately in red colour in the plan appended to the final decree in Ext.B1. The property comprised in Sy.No.223/5 lies on the west and south of the property comprised in Sy.No.223/6. 16. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the two plans, one produced in O.S.10/1959 and the other plan appended to the final decree in O.S.328/1987 clearly demarcate the different plots in question and also the land which was taken away for the formation of the road and 10 cents of land (5 cents each) given as kudikidappu. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the identity of the land the respondents contend. The claimants/appellants are not entitled to make any claim in respect of the property mentioned therein on the strength of the alleged compromise decree, passed in O.S.23/1963. 17. Ext.B7 is the certified copy of the preliminary judgment dated 8-12-1959, in O.S.10/1959. It is mentioned therein that the suit was originally filed in the District Court, Paravur as O.S.51/1124 corresponding to 1948-1949. 17. Ext.B7 is the certified copy of the preliminary judgment dated 8-12-1959, in O.S.10/1959. It is mentioned therein that the suit was originally filed in the District Court, Paravur as O.S.51/1124 corresponding to 1948-1949. A preliminary decree was originally passed in that suit in respect of item Nos.4 & 5 on 3-10-1951. The right of the 10th defendant over item No.6 was left open to be decided later. As regards the preliminary decree passed in respect of items 4 and 5 an appeal was filed by the 2nd defendant. That appeal was allowed in part and the suit was remitted to the trial court for determining the rights of defendants 2 and 10 therein. The second defendant is Achuthan Pillai and the 10th defendant is Neelakanda Iyer, the father of Harihare Iyer (Harihara Iyer is the husband of the appellant Rajamma). 18. Thereafter the suit was made over to the Sub Court Paravur where it was numbered as O.S.No.15/1956. Another preliminary decree was passed by the Sub Judge allowing partition of item 1 to 3 and 7. As per Ext.B9 the issue which was considered was the partibility of item No.6 in the A schedule thereto. Item No.6 was 42 cents of land in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6. Neelakanda Iyer who was the 10th defendant in that suit contended that 54 cents in Sy.No.223/5 and 4 cents in Sy.No.223/5 and another 50 cents in Sy.No.223/6 and 21/3 and the improvements and buildings thereon absolutely belonged to him. It was further stated that the total extent of Sy.No.223/6 was 46 cents. 11 cents of land out of it was acquired by the Government and 9 cents belonged to him. The balance was stated to be 26 cents. It was contended that 1/9 right over the balance 26 cents belonged to one Madhavan Pillai, the brother of the plaintiff in that suit. The plaintiff in that suit was Padmanabha Pillai Kumara Pillai. Madhavan Pillai who was having 1/9 share sold it to a stranger and later by change of hands it reached the hands of the 10th defendant Neelakanda Iyer. Neelakanda Iyer hence instituted O.S.20/1118 (almost corresponding to 1943) before the Munsiff’s Court Paravur, for partition of his 1/9 share. It was further contended that 1/9 share was requested to be exclusively allotted to him, close to the 9 cents which belonged to him (the 10th defendant). Neelakanda Iyer hence instituted O.S.20/1118 (almost corresponding to 1943) before the Munsiff’s Court Paravur, for partition of his 1/9 share. It was further contended that 1/9 share was requested to be exclusively allotted to him, close to the 9 cents which belonged to him (the 10th defendant). It was also contended that the two buildings situated in the 26 cents of land mentioned earlier were purchased by the 10th defendant from their owners and thus the land and buildings claimed by the 10th defendant were not liable to be partitioned, it was contended by the 10th defendant. 19. It was further contended that he had leasehold right over the aforesaid 26 cents of land. As referred to earlier, Neelakanda Iyer who was the 10th defendant in O.S.10/1959 filed O.S.11/1959 also. In that suit the plaint schedule property was shown to be 14 cents comprised in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6. It was stated that the plaint schedule property and other properties were sold in Court auction in execution of the decree in O.S.464/1091 of Perumbavvor Munsiff’s Court and those properties were purchased by the decree holder Narayana Prabhu and he took delivery of that property through Court. The first defendant therein, Sri. Raman Pillai had filed a claim petition with regard to the plaint schedule property in O.S.464/1091. There was no dispute regarding the fact that the plaint schedule property formed part of 54 cents of land. It was the case of Neelakanda Iyer, the plaintiff in O.S.11/1959 that the plaint schedule property over which he claimed title and possession was taken delivery of by the decree holder in O.S.464/1091. That claim petition filed by Sri. Raman Pillai was allowed on 21-11-1950. O.S.11/59 was filed to set aside the order/judgment passed in that claim petition and to declare that the plaintiff Neelakanda Iyer has got title to and possession over the plaint schedule property therein. 20. The case set up in O.S.11/1959 was that the order passed on 21-11-1950 was wrong and that Raman Pillai the claimant did not acquire any title to the plaint schedule property therein by virtue of the decree he had obtained in O.S.482/1082. As stated earlier, O.S.11/1959 was filed to set aside the order passed in the Claim Petition in O.S.464/1091. That suit (O.S.No.11/1959) was ultimately dismissed. As stated earlier, O.S.11/1959 was filed to set aside the order passed in the Claim Petition in O.S.464/1091. That suit (O.S.No.11/1959) was ultimately dismissed. It is Seen that Harihar Iyer had already relinquished his right in respect of the property mentioned therein after receiving a sum of Rs.8,500/-as consideration for the value of the building. Since Neelakanda Iyer had already lost his right and as his suit O.S.11/1959 was dismissed, his son Harihara Iyer cannot lay claim over the said property claiming right under his father Neelakanda Iyyer. Therefore, Rajamma, the wife of Harihara Iyer also cannot lay claim over the property mentioned herein which is the subject matter of these appeals. 21. In page 109 of Ext.B7, the Judgment in O.S.10/1959, it was clearly stated that the 10th defendant Neelakanda Iyer had no right over the disputed property; namely item No.6. It was further held that item No.6 shall be divided into 10 shares and one share be allotted to defendants 6 and 7 and the balance 9/10 share be given to the 2nd defendant Achuthan Pillai. 22. As stated earlier, a compromise was entered into in O.S.10/1959. Ext.B6 is the decree therein which was passed on 14-6-1971. Ext.B6 (a) is the compromise petition which was annexed to Ext.B6. It was specifically stated therein that there was a case between the 10th defendant therein (Neelaknda Iyer) the husband of the supplemental 51st defendant and the father of D50 and D52 and that there was a suit filed by Neelakanda Iyer as O.S.No.11/1959. It was further recited that as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S.10/1959 in respect of item No.6 mentioned above, the second defendant therein Achuthan Pillai had 9/10 shares and on his death that right devolved upon defendants 53, 54 and 55 and that the balance 1/10 share was held to be of D6 and D7. It was specifically mentioned that as per the compromise petition filed in that case the 6th item was not included. It was further recited that the dispute over the 6th item therein was only between the parties to Ext.B6 (a) and they subsequently settled the matter as stated in Ext.B6 (a) referred to above. 23. As per Ext.B3 compromise, defendants 50, 51 and 52 did not press their right over item No.6 and they withdrew all their claims in respect of that property. 23. As per Ext.B3 compromise, defendants 50, 51 and 52 did not press their right over item No.6 and they withdrew all their claims in respect of that property. It was further stated that for the improvements which had been effected in the said property the aforesaid supplemental defendants 50, 51 and 52 received Rs.8500/- as consideration from the 54th defendant Mr. Ramachandran Nair mentioned therein who is the legal heir of D2-Achuthan Pillai. The consideration of Rs.8,500/-was received by Harihara Iyer the 50th defendant on behalf of other defendants also. As per the said compromise, the absolute right and possession over item No.6 was given to Ramachandran Nair, the 54th defendant. Ramachandran Nair mentioned above was given the right to evict the tenant who had been granted lease by the deceased 10th defendant and the Rent Control Petitions which were filed in respect of those buildings were allowed to be prosecuted by the 54th defendant Mr. Ramachandran Nair. Therefore, it is argued by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents that a perusal of Ext.B6 (a) and B3 will scuttle the plea raised by the appellants that Rajamma the wife of Harihara Iyer had obtained right over the property. Ext.B7 is the certified copy of the final judgment in O.S.10/59, based on which Ext.B6th final decree was passed. It was mentioned in Ext.B7 also that the claim earlier made by the 10th defendant over item No.6 therein was that he had leasehold interest over 26 cents which was part of item No.6. 24. As stated earlier, Ext.B3 the final decree would show that as per the preliminary decree 9/10 share over item No.6 was kept apart to the second defendant therein and on his death his right i.e. 9/10 share devolved upon defendants 53, 54 and 55. Thus, each of them would get 3/10 share each. The remaining 1/10 share was kept apart to the 6th and 7th defendant therein. It was accepted that as per the lease deed the 10th defendant therein (deceased Neelakanda Iyer) had obtained leasehold right over the property and on his death that lease hold right devolved upon his son Harihara Iyer and also D51 and 52 i.e. Nagammal the wife of Neelakanda Iyer and Lekshmi Ammal the daughter of Neelakanda Iyer. It was accepted that as per the lease deed the 10th defendant therein (deceased Neelakanda Iyer) had obtained leasehold right over the property and on his death that lease hold right devolved upon his son Harihara Iyer and also D51 and 52 i.e. Nagammal the wife of Neelakanda Iyer and Lekshmi Ammal the daughter of Neelakanda Iyer. It was further made clear that defendants 50, 51 and 52 mentioned earlier, i.e., Harihara Iyer, his mother and his sister did not press their claim over item No.6 for which they received a sum of Rs.8500/- as consideration. Rajamma the appellant in the Execution Second Appeal 15/2010 and her assignees claim right over the property on the premise that Neelakanda Iyer had assigned the property in favour of the Company by name Cardamom Marketing Company Travancore Ltd. mentioned in O.S.23/63. Ext.A16 and A17 are the two documents relied upon by the appellant in support of her submission. Both those two documents were executed on 24-3-1959. One was executed by Neelakanda Iyer, the other was executed by Neelakanda Iyer and his Wife Nagammal. It is in respect of the suit property. It is worthwhile to note that these two documents were executed by Neelakanda Iyer in favour of the Company who was represented by its Secretary who is none other than Ramachandra Iyer, son of Neelakanda Iyer. Exts.A16 and A17 are the documents executed pentende lite, ie., those two documents were executed during the pendency of O.S.10/1959 in which Neelakanda Iyer was the 10th defendant. Ext.B3 and other documents would clearly show that item No.6 therein; namely, the suit property herein was kept apart to the share of Achuthan Pillai, the second defendant therein. The final decree was passed in O.S.No.10/59 on 23-09-1973. The evidence would show that 3/9 undivided share of defendant No.53 namely, Raghavan Nair was purchased by the respondent Amarudheen who was the plaintiff in O.S.259/1983, which after it was transferred to Munsiff’s Court Aluva was re-numbered as O.S.328/1987. It is also in evidence that while that suit O.S.259/1983 was pending one Hamza purchased 7/10 share in the property from defendants 54, 55, D6 and D7 as per four separate deeds. It was further contended that Hamza mentioned above was impleaded as the addl.11th defendant in that suit. It is also in evidence that while that suit O.S.259/1983 was pending one Hamza purchased 7/10 share in the property from defendants 54, 55, D6 and D7 as per four separate deeds. It was further contended that Hamza mentioned above was impleaded as the addl.11th defendant in that suit. In that suit preliminary decree was passed on 31-3-1989 allotting 1/3 share to the plaintiff Amarudheen and 7/10 share to the 11th defendant Hamza. It is also in evidence that 1/3 share of Amarudheen was purchased by Muhammed Azeem, the first respondent herein who filed I.A.1626/1995 for passing the final decree. The 11th defendant Hamza is the material grandfather of Muhammed Azeem the respondent herein. It is also in evidence that Hamza mentioned above executed a settlement deed as per which he settled his entire share in the property to his daughter and her three sons; that is addl. defendants 37, 38, 39 and additional plaintiff. Hamza expired during the pendency of the final decree proceedings. The final decree was passed only on 13-11-2000 allotting the property to the additional plaintiff and defendants 37, 38 and 39. It was thereafter, the execution petition was filed for getting delivery of the property as per the final decree. 25. It can be seen that Ext.A16 and A17 are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The 10th defendant Neelakanda Iyer and on his death his wife and children who were impleaded as addl. respondents in the final decree application cannot feign ignorance as to what transpired with respect to the suit property and the other properties. 26. In paragraph 30 of Ext.B7 judgment (judgment in O.S.10/1959) it was observed that the 10th defendant therein namely; Neelakanda Iyer had contended that if the 2nd defendant therein namely; Achuthan Pillai was the owner of that property, then Kochu Krishnan Nair will have no right in this property. Neelakanda Iyer relied on a lease deed of 1113 executed in favour of the first defendant therein namely; Padmanabha Pillai. A copy of the lease deed was produced in that suit. It was found by the Court that so far as 14 cents of land involved in O.S.11/1959 is concerned, there was no lease and that suit, O.S.11/1959 was dismissed. Therefore, it was held that the 2nd defendant Achuthan Pillai is entitled to recover possession of that property namely; 14 cents mentioned in O.S.11/59. 27. It was found by the Court that so far as 14 cents of land involved in O.S.11/1959 is concerned, there was no lease and that suit, O.S.11/1959 was dismissed. Therefore, it was held that the 2nd defendant Achuthan Pillai is entitled to recover possession of that property namely; 14 cents mentioned in O.S.11/59. 27. It was observed by the Court that the first defendant therein had filed a suit for recovery of possession of 28 cents of land in item No.6 from Kochu Krishnan Nair, his assignee. That suit was decreed on 16-6-1121. Copy of the decree was produced in that case. It was further observed that it was after that decree the 10th defendant purchased the lease hold right as per lease deed dated 21-7-1121. Therefore, it was found that even before the 10th defendant purchased the rights of Kochkrishnan Nair in item No.6, the lease was terminated by a decree. It was further found that since the second defendant Achuthan Pillai was already found to be the owner of that property, the 10th defendant Neelakanda Iyer had not acquired any right over item No.6. Thus, it was found by the Court in Ext.B7 that the gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant was valid and that he was in possession of those items till 1103. 28. It was further found that the 10th defendant Neelakanda Iyer had no right over that property. Hence, finally, as per Ext.B7 judgment in O.S.10/1959 a preliminary decree for partition of item, No.6 was passed that it shall be divided into 10 shares and one such share shall be given to defendants 6 and 7 namely; (D. Balakrishnan and G. Gopinathan) and the rest of the property i.e. 9/10 shares shall be given to the 2nd defendant, P.R. Achuthan Pillai. Thus, defendants 2, 6 and 7 were allowed to recover possession of item No.6. Ext.B7 judgment in O.S.10/59 was passed by the Court on 8-12-1959. Since the rights of the parties were already determined as per Ext.B7 judgment on 8-12-1959, even if any document was executed by Neelakanda Iyer in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963, that would confer no right or title in his favour, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent. 29. Since the rights of the parties were already determined as per Ext.B7 judgment on 8-12-1959, even if any document was executed by Neelakanda Iyer in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963, that would confer no right or title in his favour, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent. 29. Rajamma the wife of Harihara Iyer claims title based on a compromise decree entered into between herself and others on the one side and the plaintiff cardamom Company in O.S.23/63 on the other hand. As per Ext.A2 the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and defendant therein, Item No.1 shown therein was transferred to the 4th defendant Rajamma. No registered document was executed in respect of the same. In Ext.A2 compromise petition it was stated that the plaintiff therein had obtained these properties as per two registered documents bearing Nos.727/1959 and 728/1959 executed by Neelakanda Iyer, the first defendant. Exts.A16 and A17 are those documents. Exts.A16 and A17 were executed in favour of the plaintiff Company in O.S.23/1963 on 24-3-1959 during the pendency of O.S.10/1959. Hence, the validity of Exts.A16 and A17 would be subject by the decree and judgment in O.S.10/1959 by reason of the principle contained in Sec.52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Though Neelakanda Iyer was stated to have assigned those items of property in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963 as per Exts.A16 and A17 on 24-3-1959 and eventhough there is a recital in Ext.A2 compromise agreement that right over the suit property was given to Smt. Rajamma, the appellant, no registered document evidencing transfer was executed in favour of Smt. Rajamma. When the so called compromise agreement pertains to the transfer of immovable property, certainly based on the compromise agreement a registered document should have been executed assigning the title to the party to whom it was agreed to be sold. Admittedly, no registered document was executed by the plaintiff therein in favour of Smt. Rajamma. Therefore, simply by relying on terms of Ext.A2, compromise in the 1963 suit, the appellant Rajamma cannot rest her claim over the property on the strength of Ext.A2 compromise decree. That apart, Neelakanda Iyyer had no subsisting right to confer title on the plaintiff in O.S.233/1963. 30. Therefore, simply by relying on terms of Ext.A2, compromise in the 1963 suit, the appellant Rajamma cannot rest her claim over the property on the strength of Ext.A2 compromise decree. That apart, Neelakanda Iyyer had no subsisting right to confer title on the plaintiff in O.S.233/1963. 30. The further fact that defendants 50 to 52 who are the legal heirs of deceased Neelakanda Iyer (D10 in O.S.10/1959) had received Rs.8,500/-towards the value of improvements effected in item No.6 and relinquished all their rights and possession over item No.6 as evidenced by the judgment in O.S.10/1959 also has to be borne in mind. It was already mentioned that there is a clear finding that the 10th defendant Neelakanda Iyer had no subsisting leasehold right or any other right over item No.6. To compensate the value of improvements effected by D10 in O.S.10/1959 a sum of Rs.8,500/- was received by defendants 50 to 52 in O.S.10/59. At the risk of repetition it may be stated that the clear finding in the judgment in O.S.10/59 is that item No.6 was allotted exclusively to defendant Nos.53 to 55 who are the leagal heirs of deceased 2nd defendant as Achuthan Pillai and defendants 6 and 7. Out of them defendants 6 and 7 were together entitled to only 1/10 share whereas the 9/10 share belonged to and allotted to defendants 53 to 55. It is in evidence that O.S.320/1987 a preliminary decree was passed in 31-3-1989 allotting 1/3 share to plaintiff Amarudheen and 7/10 share to Hamza mentioned above. 1/3 share of Amarudheen was purchased by Muhammed Aseem in 1994 so he filed the application I.A.1626/1995 for passing the final decree. Hamza who is stated to be the maternal grandfather of Muhammed Aseem the petitioner in I.A.1626/1995 got the remaining property as per the settlement deed executed by Hamza. 31. Ext.B4 is the plan prepared in O.S.10/1959 which was accepted in that case. It was mentioned that out of the property involved in Sy.No.223/5 and 223/6, certain portions of land were acquired for the purpose of widening or formation of the road. The position of the road is shown in the aforesaid plan. The total extent of the land comprised in Survey Nos.223/5 and 223/6, excluding the land acquired for the formation or widening of the road was found to be 41.805 cents. The position of the road is shown in the aforesaid plan. The total extent of the land comprised in Survey Nos.223/5 and 223/6, excluding the land acquired for the formation or widening of the road was found to be 41.805 cents. There is a plan attached to Ext.B1 the final decree passed in O.S.328/1987 which is almost identical to Ext.B4 plan as to the Survey No. extent and location. As per Ext.B1 plan the property was divided into 20 plots. The total area covered by plots 1 to 20 is 41.805 cents and it is comprised in 223/5 and 223/6. Plot Nos.16, 17 and 18 are the only plots which are yet to be delivered to the respondents/decree holders. The extent of plot No.16 is shown as 2.540 cent. That plot is comprised in 223/6. Plot Nos.17 and 18 are comprised in Sy.Nos.223/5. The extent of plot No.17 is 2.104 cents whereas the extent of plot No.18 is 3.392 cents. 32. Neelakanda Iyer, the 10th defendant in O.S.10/59 is bound by Ext.B7 judgment. The leasehold right set up by him was found against in that case. The delivery effected, in the earlier case which was challenged in O.S.11/1959; that suit O.S.11/1959 was dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963 who claimed right by virtue of Ext.A16 and A17 executed on 24-3-1959 is bound by the decree and judgment in O.S.10/1959. The compromise entered into in O.S.23/1963 is, therefore, not binding on D2, D6 and D7 in O.S.10/1959. That apart Rajamma, as per the compromise in O.S.23/1963, was stated to have purchased right did not actually obtain right over the properties since no registered document evidencing transfer was executed in favour of Rajamma. Since the transfer effected in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963 is subject to the result of O.S.10/1959 and since it was already found in O.S.10/1959 that the 10th defendant has no right over the property his assignees can claim no right over the property. Since the transfer effected in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963 is subject to the result of O.S.10/1959 and since it was already found in O.S.10/1959 that the 10th defendant has no right over the property his assignees can claim no right over the property. The fact that the appellant Rajamma was not a party to the subsequent partition suit, O.S.328/1987 is no reason to say that she is not bound by the judgment in O.S.10/1959 and 11/1959 since she is claiming right on the strength of the assignment deeds executed by Neelakanda Iyer in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963 and on the alleged surrender made by the plaintiff in that suit in favour of Smt. Rajamma, the appellant herein. Therefore, the argument vehemently advanced on behalf of the appellant, that Rajamma the appellant is not bound by the earlier judgment and decree in O.S.10/1959 and 11/1959 is devoid of any merit. 33. Since the assignment in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.23/1963 is hit by the rule of lis pendens the plaintiff therein is bound by the judgment and decree in O.S.10/59 and 11/59. The fact that the final decree in O.S.10/1959 is passed subsequent the assignment (A16 and A17) would make no difference. Parties are bound by the judgment in O.S.10/1959. 34. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Venkara Reddy v. Pethi Reddy – AIR 1963 SC 992: “A preliminary decree passed, whether it is in a mortgage suit or a partition suit, is not a tentative decree but must, in so far as the matters dealt with by it are concerned, be regarded as conclusive. No doubt, in suits which contemplate the making of two decrees – a preliminary decree and a final decree-the decree which would be executable would be the final decree. But the finality of a decree or a decision does not necessarily depend upon its being executable. The legislature in its wisdom has thought that suits of certain types should be decided in stages and though the suit in which cases can be regarded as fully and completely decided only after a final decree is made, the decision of the court arrived at the earlier stage also has a finality attached to it. The legislature in its wisdom has thought that suits of certain types should be decided in stages and though the suit in which cases can be regarded as fully and completely decided only after a final decree is made, the decision of the court arrived at the earlier stage also has a finality attached to it. S.97, Civil P.C. clearly indicates that as to the matters covered by it, a preliminary decree is regarded as embodying the final decision of the court passing that decree”. Therefore, whether a final decree was passed or not would make no difference since so far as the right asserted by one party and denied by the other is concerned the decision rendered by the Court attained finality and so the parties are bound by the same. 35. Since the respondent/decree holder claims title to the property by virtue of the final decree passed in O.S.323/1987 who had obtained right over the property from the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd defendant and other persons as mentioned in O.S.10/1959 and since the plan attached to the final decree in O.S.10/1959 and the plan attached to the partition decree in O.S.328/1987 are found to be almost identical, the contention to the contrary, advanced by the learned counsel cannot be sustained. 36. Since the other two appellants claim right by virtue of the assignment deeds executed by Rajamma in favour of the other appellant they can have no better right over the property. Hence, the objections raised by the appellants herein were rightly turned down by the courts below. I find no merit in these appeals. Hence, all these appeals are dismissed. Dated this the 12th day of September, 2013.