- (1.) Civil Appeal Nos. 491-92 of 1980, Civil Appeal Nos. 783-784 of 1981 and Civil Appeal Nos. 10102-05 of 1983 were tagged to be heard along with the above appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in all these cases, judgment was reserved. Learned counsel for the appellants in C. A. No. 492 of 1980 and C. A. Nos. 10103 and 10105 of 1983 informed that the matter had been compromised between the parties out of court and as such these appeals were disposed of by an order dated 4/08/1992. After going through the record of the above appeal, we are convinced that its facts are so glaring and different that it can be dealt with separately and as such we are deciding this appeal on its own facts.
(2.) The High court itself in the opening part of the impugned order has observed as under: "This case illustrates how very resourceful a judgment-debtor could be and ingenuously set at naught the valid orders of court, including a compromise decree. Undaunted by the adverse judgments right from 1963, the judgment-debtor has been making repeated onslaughts under the umbrage of some technical plea or other and thereby has been preventing the decree-holder from realising the fruits of the decree. "
(3.) The broad features of the case are that original Suit No. 30 of 1962 was filed by the plaintiff, Hazarath Syed Sha Mian Sakkaf Sahib Khadiri Thaikal represented by its trustee, for the recovery of the vacant possession of the suit property from defendants 1 and 2 after removing the superstructure put up thereon. G. Muthuvelu Pillai was the First defendant who is now dead and is represented through his legal representatives who are the appellants in the present appeal. Pending the aforesaid suit the parties entered into a compromise on 28/06/1963. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the compromise on 6/08/1963 and according to which the plaintiff was permitted to purchase the superstructure on payment of Rs. 6,000. 00. On appeal, the sale consideration was increased to Rs. 10,000. 00 by the lower appellate court. In second appeal decided on 5/11/1968 the amount was determined as Rs. 8,000. 00. The plaintiff had already deposited Rs. 6,000. 00 and for the balance Rs. 2,000. 00 he was granted 2 months' time. The defendants were permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 already deposited as well as Rs. 2,000. 00 to be deposited only after giving possession. The plaintiff on the strength of this decree Filed an execution petition in1969. Certain objections were raised on behalf of the defendant judgment-debtor 1 and all those objections were dismissed right up to the High court. While dismissing the objections the High court in its order dated 13/11/1970 observed that the petitioner in that case (defendant judgment-debtor 1 had been set up by the other members of the family to rake up the question over again after having obtained an advantage of the amount being fixed at Rs. 8,000. 00 by the High court.;