JUDGMENT : Barman, C.J. - The Defendants-judgment-debtors in Execution Case No. 114 of 1982 are the Appellants against an order dated August 4, 1964, of the Fifth Additional Subordinate Judge Cuttack, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 80 of 1963, by which he rejected the objection of the judgment-debtors to the Execution Case on the ground that the decree is not executable. The material facts leading upto the Execution Case and the objection thereto are as stated as hereunder. 2. Title Suit No. 119 of 1950 was filed by the Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit lands, as the ultimate purchasers under a sale by a Hindu widow for legal necessity. The Plaintiffs' case is that in 1935 one Rangadhar died leaving his widow Khulana as his heir and legal representative. On January 29, 1946, Khulana by a Kebala-said to be for legal necessity-sold the suit lands to her son-in-law Dharani. Thereafter, on May 31,1947 Dharani sold the suit lands to the Plaintiffs Respondents by another Kebala (Ext. 2). 3. Khulana died in 1947. Thereafter, in 150, the Plaintiffs-Respondents filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 119 of 1950 for declaration of title and possession. The suit was contested by the Defendants-Appellants as reversioners after the death of Khulana. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs on the finding that Khulana was the rightful owner and that the alienation was for legal necessity. On appeal (Title appeal No. 1 of 152) the learned lower appellate Court found that the sale being not for legal necessity was voidable and not void; the suit was decreed accordingly. Thereafter the matter was taken up in second appeal to the High Court, being S.A. 175 of 1953; the High Court remanded the suit to the trial Court. On remand the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal from the judgment of the trial Court after remand the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court. There after the matter was again taken up in second appeal to the High Court in S.A. 81 of 1959, but the question of legal necessity was not challenged before the High Court. The High Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs on the finding that Khulana was the rightful owner of the suit lands. There after the matter was again taken up in second appeal to the High Court in S.A. 81 of 1959, but the question of legal necessity was not challenged before the High Court. The High Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs on the finding that Khulana was the rightful owner of the suit lands. The matter rested there and in execution of the said decree the Plaintiffs filed Execution Case No. 114 of 1952. 5. The Defendants-judgment-debtors (Appellants herein) filed objection to the Execution Case u/s 47, CPC which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 80 of 1963. The judgment-debtors contended that the lower Courts, namely the Munsif and the lower appellate Court, consistently held that the transfer effected by Khulana was not supported by legal necessity, and that this point was not agitated before the Hon'ble High Court in second appeal; accordingly the transfer in question could not be held to be valid beyond the lifetime of Khulana; as a result, the decree was no longer executable in view of the fact that the properties reverted to the next reversioners, namely the Appellants. This objection was over-ruled by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. Hence this miscellaneous appeal. 6. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the judgment-debtors (Appellants herein). The reasons for this view are these: After the death of Khulana in 1947 and before Title Suit No. 119 of 1950 was filed in 1950 the alleged right of reversioners, if any, had already accrued as claimed by the Defendants. The only issues which were raised in the suit, were whether Khulana was a limited owner and whether the sale was for legal necessity. It was open to the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the sale by Khulana, as a limited owner, was not for legal necessity. In the final decision by the High Court in S.A. 81 of 1959, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not file an appeal from the said decision. In S.A. 81 of 1959, it was by implication decided that the sale was for legal necessity because, otherwise, the Court could not have passed a decree for possession even after the death of Khulana. In S.A. 81 of 1959, it was by implication decided that the sale was for legal necessity because, otherwise, the Court could not have passed a decree for possession even after the death of Khulana. The Plaintiffs' title was thus decided in their favour on the strength of the sale deed dated May 31, 1947 (Ext. 2) Although Khulana died in 1947 long before the suit was filed in 1950, the Plaintiffs' title was decided and possession given long after her death. Therefore, this is not a case where the decree has become in executable by subsequent events which took place after the passing of the decree; the decree was final between the parties. In any event, by the final decision of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 81 of 1959 all the decisions of the Courts below were set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs; the executing Court cannot now go behind the decree. 7. In this view of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack which is upheld. This Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed