1. 03.This Execution Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, dismissing the third party objections of the Appellants.

2.1 As the paper book would reveal, Civil Suit No. 224 of 2013 for recovery of Rs.4,92,016, filed on 11.04.2013 by plaintiff Amit Kumar (decree holder - now respondent No.1) was decreed against Dinesh Kumar son of Ishwar Singh defendant (judgment debtor - now respondent No. 2), on 25.07.2014 by Ld. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn., Charkhi Dadri. The two third party objectors (now Appellants) are the mother and son respectively of the JD - Dinesh Kumar.
2.2 In order to realize the decreetal amount, the decree holder filed Execution No. 1795 of 2014 (CNR No. HRBHA0-001008-2014) before the Executing Court at Charkhi Dadri. During execution, the decree holder furnished the details of the ancestral property of the JD. The said property was sought to be attached, when the two Appellants filed third party objections, submitting that property in question was earlier owned by Ishwar, the father of JD - Dinesh Kumar and that said Ishwar by virtue of a registered Release Deed No. 6510 dated 12.03.2015 had relinquished his rights regarding the said property in favour of the third party objectors. It was claimed that JD - Dinesh Kumar had no share in the said property.
2.3 On the other hand, the stand of the decree holder was that the release deed had been executed within a mala fide intention only to defeat the rights of the decree holder, inasmuch as the property in question was ancestral in nature, in which JD had right by birth and as such, the release deed was void in the eyes of law and that the share of the JD in the said property could be attached so as to realize the decreetal amount.
2.4 The Executing Court framed necessary issue as to 'whether the property in question was ancestral qua the judgment debtor Dinesh'. After taking evidence produced by the parties, the Executing Court held that suit property was ancestral in nature, in which the judgment debtor had birth right and therefore, the release deed No. 6510 dated 12.03.2015 in favour of the third party objectors was void to the extent of its negating the share of JD in the said property. As such, dismissing the objections vide order dated 30.09.2022, direction was issued to attach the share of Dinesh Kumar in the property in question to be sold by way of auction upto the extent of the decreetal amount for its realization.
2.5 The said order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Executing Court was challenged by the third party objectors before the Appellate Court. However, their Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2022 was dismissed by the Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 10.11.2022 upholding the view taken by the Executing Court to the effect that property in question was ancestral in the hands of father of the judgment debtor and that the release deed in favour of the third party objectors was void and that the share of the JD in the suit property could be attached as per law.

3.1. The aforesaid orders have been assailed by the third party objectors by way of present Appeal. It is contended by learned counsel for the Appellants that as per the settled proposition of law, a property becomes ancestral in the hands of a person, when it comes to him from his three male lineal ascendants by way of natural succession i.e. when he received the property from his father, father's father or father's father's father by way of natural succession. Learned counsel contends that in the present case, Ishwar, the father of the JD, was the son of Badlu Ram and said Badlu Ram was the son of Fusa. It was obligatory upon the decree holder to produce the record that Badlu had inherited the property of Fusa by way of natural succession but no such evidence was produced. It is further contended that even Ishwar i.e. the father of Judgment Debtor got the property by way of a consent decree dated 05.08.1995 and n