JUDGMENT P. K. Pali, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner. 2. The admitted position as it emerges out from the reading of the record is that Kalan Devi respondent No. l is legally wedded wife of Maan Chand respondent No. 2. She had initiated the proceedings against her husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and was successful in securing a decree in her favour on 14-2-1986. A suit was filed by her thereafter for declaration and injunction for the purposes of creating charge on the property of Maan Chand in lieu of the maintenance which stood granted to her in the proceedings referred to above. The suit was ordered to be decreed and the land in question was ordered to be attached. 3. The husband i.e. Maan Chand entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property in question with the present petitioner K. S. Gathania. As the maintenance was not being paid by the husband to the wife, she filed execution proceedings and the petitioner in those proceedings filed objections that he was in possession of the property in pursuance to the agreement of sale was and was entitled to the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. A further objection was raised by him that the decree obtained by the wife was for declaration simplicitor and the learned executing Court had no right and authority to issue warrants of possession in the given situation. The petitioner also objected that the execution could not be maintained against him as he was not a party to the suit (sic) between the wife and the husband. 4. The learned trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties has dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner and hence this revision petition by him before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Kuldip Singh contends that the case is not covered by lis pendens as the suit for declaration was filed by the wife on 6th September, 1988 whereas the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner stood executed prior to that period i.e. on 26-8-1987. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Kuldip Singh contends that the case is not covered by lis pendens as the suit for declaration was filed by the wife on 6th September, 1988 whereas the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner stood executed prior to that period i.e. on 26-8-1987. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner was fully entitled for the protection available to him under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also contended that as per statement given by the wife, it is the petitioner who is in possession of the property in question. A further argument is raised that in the given situation, the property does not belong to the husband. It rather belongs to the judgment debtor who had a complete title to the property and was in its lawful possession. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife i.e. respondent No. 1 contends, in reply, that the maintenance at-the rate of Rs.100/- per month was granted to the wife in a civil suit which was filed in the year 1983 and which was decided on 14-2-1986. These proceedings were filed by her under the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 7. It is further stated by the learned counsel that the wife filed a suit for declaration on 6-9-1988 which was decided on 3-9-1991 and a decree came to be passed in her favour for declaration with consequential relief of injunction to the effect that she is entitled for the creation of charge and provision for residence from the suit property and the defendant in that suit i.e the husband was also restrained from alienating the suit property to any-body by way of mortgage, sale, gift, will or through exchange, mentioned in the head note of the plaint. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the impugned order and the record, I find that the revision petition has no merit. 9. Undisputedly, the wife has succeeded in getting a decree against the| husband in respect of the charge on the disputed property and the operative part of the decree has also been given above in the earlier part of this judgment. Besides, the wife has also been held entitled to the provision of residence from the suit property. 10. 9. Undisputedly, the wife has succeeded in getting a decree against the| husband in respect of the charge on the disputed property and the operative part of the decree has also been given above in the earlier part of this judgment. Besides, the wife has also been held entitled to the provision of residence from the suit property. 10. At the cost of repetition, it may be pointed out here that the husband stands restrained in the decree from alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to contend that the decree was for declaration simplicitor and the property in question could not be ordered to be taken possession of, by issuance of the warrants by the learned executing Court. 11. It may also be noticed that it is only the agreement of sale on which the petitioner is basing his claim. The sale deed, as yet, has not been executed in his favour. He is at liberty to proceed against the defendant-husband in any manner he desires, but he cannot be permitted to frustrate the decree having been successfully obtained by the wife. 12. The matter can still be viewed from another angle also. The petitioner filed objections before the learned executing Court where the wife is proceeding against the property of the defendant-husband for the satisfaction of the claim to which she is entitled to under the decree of maintenance. The petitioner, as I look at the controversy can be heard only in an independent claim if so advised and the learned executing Court in the proceedings cannot permit the objector to file objections of the kind, which in my considered opinion stand rightly dismissed. The function of the learned executing Court is to execute the decree in its letter and spirit. The objections of the third party cannot be considered in the given situation. 13. I cannot refrain from observing that the act and conduct of the husband in the present case appears to be to avoid the claim of the wife and he could very well anticipate that in case, he is unable to pay her maintenance, the same would be realised by her out of the property in question. It, therefore, appears that he had entered into a dealing with the petitioner in a clandestine manner so that the wife is left high and dry. 14. It, therefore, appears that he had entered into a dealing with the petitioner in a clandestine manner so that the wife is left high and dry. 14. In view of what has been said above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. -