A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. Disputes in these cases revolve around the right of a party to resist execution of the final decree passed in a partition suit by raising claims under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) when he was found, after a fulfledged trial, to be an unnecessary party to the suit. He would, therefore, contend that he is not bound by the decree.

2. Learned single Judge admitted Ex. S.A. No. 14 of 2013 by raising two substantial questions of law. Since the substantial legal questions put forth in Ex. S.A. No. 13 of 2013 are identical, it is also admitted and both the appeals are heard together.

3. After perusing the entire records and on hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the substantial questions of law re-framed are as follows:

(i) When the appellant was found to be an unnecessary party to a suit for partition and he had set up a title different from the one mentioned in the pleadings of the contesting parties, are the courts below right in holding that the appellant is bound by the decree and that he cannot maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code?

(ii) Are the courts below justified in declining t