( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The short question that is raised by the appellants is, whether the respondent is entitled to execute the decree. It arises in this way: the decree sought to be executed was obtained by one Mundi Hengsu, since deceased, in O. S. No. 367 of 1947 as Yejamanthi of Aliyasanthana family of which the appellants and respondent were members; that decree was for possession and mesne profits to be realised from the present judgment-debtors; thereafter, there was a partition suit among the members of the Aliyasanthana family and a final decree for partition came to be passed on 14-9-1954; the present respondent claiming as heir to one Manku Bhandary, since deceased sought to execute the decree obtained in O. S. No. 367 of 1947 and realise the decretal amount from the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors objected to the maintainability of this execution petition. It was contended by them that the decree sought to be executed was not an executable decree since the said decree was merged in the partition decree amongst the members of their family and that it was only the partition decree that could be executed and not the decree obt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document