Bapna J.—This is a second appeal in execution proceedings.

2. Ganpatlal Mahajan had a decree against one Ambalal Brahmin for recovery of money. Ambalal, judgment-debtor died, and Ganpatlal wanted to execute the same against his legal representatives, and made an application that his legal representatives were Kesarlal and Dhoolchand, against whom the decree should be executed. Dhoolchand filed an objection on 5th August, 1948, that although he was the son of Ambalal, he had been adopted by Ganpatlal brother of Ambalal. It was. therefore, prayed that the decree be not executed against him. The parties led evidence and the Civil Judge Gangapur, held by judgment of 24th November, 1949 that Dhoolchand had failed to prove that he had been adopted to Ganpatlal. The objection was dismissed. Dhoolchand filed an appearand Mr. Gajendra Singh, District Judge, Bharatpur, was of opinion that the matter of the adoption was not as relevant as an enquiry as to who was in possession of the house left by Ambalal. The idea seems to have been in his mind that whether Dhoolchand may or may not have gone in adoption, if he was in possession of the house left by Ambalal, he would be an intermeddler with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document