( 1 ) THESE three revision applications are filed by the petitioners who claim to be in possession of their respective premises against the common opponent. The three revisions are heard together at the request of the learned Advocates of the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The dispute pertains to the property belonging to one Dahyagar Hiragar who had filed Civil Suit No. 66 of 1963 against his wife Bai Savita and his son named Jitendra Dahyagar as well as some other persons who claim to be the assignees or transferes of the said Bai Savita and Jitendra Dahyagar. The said suit No. 66 of 1963 was heard and disposed of on 30 67 against which first appeal No. 721/61 was filed in this court which was also heard and disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1973. The judgment and decree of this court was challenged in the Supreme Court which confirmed the said judgment and decree in 1978 whereby Dahyagar Hiragar was held to be the owner of the suit properties and that his wife Bai Savita and his son Jitendra were held to have no right title or interest whatsoever in respect of the suit properties

( 2 ) DURING the tendency of the said litigation it seems that Bai Savita and Jitendra Dahyagar had transferred their alleged rights in the property to some other persons. The present petitioners are the persons who are claiming to be in possession of certain portion of the said property as having been inducted by the so-called assignees or transfers of Bai Savita and Jitendra Dahyagar. the final decree was against not only the wife and son of the plaintiff Dahyagar but also against their assignees who were defendants Nos. 1 2 5 and 6. The original plaintiff Dahyagar had filed execution Darkhasts against the against of his wife and son and others who claim through the said assignees. During the tendency of the said execution application No. 840/73 the judgmentcreditor Dahyagar transferred his interest in the suit property to the present opponent in all the present three revision applications who was also defendant No. 7 in the original decree.

( 3 ) JYOTSNA Dahyagar the daughter of the original plaintiff filed a Civil Suit against her father another brother and the aforesaid assignees with a view to stall the Darkhast proceedings by claiming her own right title or interest therein. In the application for interim relief filed by Jyotsna in the trial court the court was pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner. Against the order on the application for interim relief an appeal from order was filed in this Court wherein. This Court was pleased to appoint the present opponent Bachubhai Sankalchand Modi as the receiver of the suit properties. Thus the present opponent is a receiver in respect of the suit premises in all the three revisions and at the same time he is also the successor-in-title of the aforesaid Dahyagar Hiragar with regard to two suit premises which are the subject matter of the present Civil Revision Application No. 651 of 1982 and Civil Revision Application No. 681 of 1982. As regards the third suit premises which is the subject matter of Civil Revision Application No. 682 of 1982 the said Bachubhai Sankalchand Modi is only a receiver appointed by this court and does not claim title to that property.

( 4 ) MR. R. N. Shah the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the three petitions has urged before me that as there is no decree against the present petitioners the execution cannot proceed against them. This contention of Mr. Shah is not tenable in view of paragraph 6 of the order of the executing court while disposing of the Darkhasts. In fact the court has passed a specific order whereby the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are directed to hand over possession of the premises in their respective possession. The original defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have purported to have transferred the premises in question to the present petitioners and hence it is not open to the present petitioners to