L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs in an un-numbered suit challenging the order of the trial Court in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts may be briefly stated as under : ( 3 ) THE respondent, Srikakulam Cooperative Central Bank appears to have instituted proceedings under the A. P. Cooperative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tekkali, tor recovery of certain amounts from one Mr. Badagala Krishnamurty. In 1951 they obtained an order of attachment. The suit schedule property was ultimately brought to sale and the respondent purchased it on 19-2-1963. Inspite of purchase it could not recover possession. Therefore, the respondent filed O. S. No. 7 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam for recovery of possession of the suit schedule Property. The suit was decreed. The respondent filed E. P. No. 55 of 1976 for execution of decree. The execution was ordered and possession was delivered to the respondent. ( 4 ) COMPLAINING that they have got title to the property under a registered mortgage deed executed in 1964 and they were wrongly dispossessed, the appellants and their predecessors, filed E. A. No. 263 of 1976 in O. S. No. 7 of 1975 under Order XXI, Rule 100, CPC. ( 5 ) THE executing Court framed several issues touching on the matter. The trial Court took the view that as on the date of exchange deed dated 16-6-1962 under which the appellants claimed, the attachment against the property was in force and in that view of the matter the exchange was void under Section 64 of CPC. Thereby it rejected the claim of the appellants herein. ( 6 ) THE appellants filed CMA No. 93 of 1984 in this Court against the order in E. A. No. 263 of 1976. This Court upheld the order of the executing Court. However it gave liberty to the appellants to file a suit, if law permits the same. It is in this context that the appellants filed the suit O. S. No. G. R. No. 2090, dated 24-7-1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sompeta. This Court upheld the order of the executing Court. However it gave liberty to the appellants to file a suit, if law permits the same. It is in this context that the appellants filed the suit O. S. No. G. R. No. 2090, dated 24-7-1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sompeta. The trial Court rejected the plaint through its order dated 8-8-1990 taking the view that since the deed of exchange under which the appellants claim title was found to be void and hit by Section 64 of CPC, the present suit is not maintainable. Hence this appeal. ( 7 ) SRI M. S. K. Sastry, learned senior Counsel submits that the order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint cannot be sustained in law. He submits that filing of suit to establish title by a person, whose property was delivered to a decree holder in execution proceedings is not barred. The learned Counsel states that though Order XXI, Rule 101 of CPC prohibits filing of such suits, the law as it prevailed when the executing Court delivered the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent, provided for resolution of such disputes through separate suits under un-amended Rule 103 of Order XXI. He also submits that at any rate these are all matters to be dealt with under relevant issues and it was not a case for rejection of plaint. ( 8 ) SRI Koka Raghava Rao, learned senior Counsel on the other hand submits that the rights of the appellants under the deed of exchange were finally decided by the executing Court in the E. A. and the same was confirmed by this Court in CMA and in that view of the matter nothing remains to be decided. He further submits that all the questions including the one based on adverse possession are deemed to have been decided in the E. A. which was dealt with elaborately on the basis of extensive oral and documentary evidence and it is not open to the appellants to reopen the issue. ( 9 ) IN view of the submissions of the learned Counsel the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the piaini of the appellants herein is liable to be rejected. ( 9 ) IN view of the submissions of the learned Counsel the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the piaini of the appellants herein is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) FROM the above narration of the facts it is evident that the appellants were dispossessed in the course of execution of the decree in O. S. No. 7 of 1975 by filing E. P. No. 55 of 1976. Admittedly the appellants herein were not parties to the suit or the E. P. They filed E. A. No. 263 of 1976 only after being dispossessed, They have put forward their claim on the basis of the deed of exchange dated 16-6-1962 as well as adverse possession. The executing Court refused to recognize the deed of exchange on the ground that it is hit by Section 64 CPC. So far as the question rotating to adverse possession is concerned, the executing Court did frame an issue on the question of limitation. The discussion on that issue however was confined to the filing of E. P within the period of limitation. The question as to whether the possession of the appellants from the date of exchange deed is to be treated as adverse to the respondent and as to whether such a possession has spread over for a period prescribed under law, was not dealt with; Obviously because the executing Court found that the appellants did not derive any title under the deed of exchange, it rejected the claim. That rejection was upheld by this Court through its order in CMA No. 93 of 1984. While upholding the order of the executing Court, this Court permitted the appellants to file a suit, if otherwise maintainable in law. ( 11 ) THE adjudication of rights of a person who is not a party to the execution proceedings but who was dispossessed of his property is provided for under Rule 99 r/w Rule 101 of Order XXF CPC as amended In 1976. The said provisions reads as under:"99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser ;-- (1) Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application in the Court complaining of such dispossession. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser ;-- (1) Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application in the Court complaining of such dispossession. (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. ""101. Question to be determined-All questions (including questions relating to right little or interest in the properly) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application, and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions". ( 12 ) A reading of the said Rule 101 clearly indicates that a separate suit for adjudication of the right title or interest in the property, which is the subject-matter of execution proceedings, is prohibited and the executing Court is conferred with the jurisdiction to decide such questions. The prohibition contained in Rule 101 is introduced by way of amendment in 1976. This amendment came into force with effect from 1-2-1977. The amendment was held, by a catena of decisions, to be prospective in operation. ( 13 ) DISPOSSESSION of appellants, herein in the execution proceedings instituted by the respondent took place in the year 1976, which is obviously prior to the coming into force of the Rule 101 as it stands at present. The relevant provision of Order XXI CPC, dealing with the adjudication of rights of the objectors to the execution or the persons dispossessed of the property who are not parties to the proceedings in 1976 were Rules 98-100 and those rules provided for submission of application; However, the delivery of possession under those circumstances was to be without any detriment to the rights of the parties to establish their rights in suits that may be instituted by them, as per Rule 103. On the other hand, the delivery of possession was made subject to the result of such suits. On the other hand, the delivery of possession was made subject to the result of such suits. Rule 103 reads as under :"103. Any party not being a judgment-debtor against whom an order is made under Rule 98, Rule 99, or Rule 101 may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the present possession of the property; but, subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order shall be conclusive. " ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the appellants were not parties to the decree in O. S. No. 7 of 1975 and that they were dispossessed prior to 1-2-1977, their right to file a suit to get their rights adjudicated remained in tact. Their dispossession is subject to the out come of the suit that may be filed by them. Therefore it cannot be said that the suit filed by the appellants is barred by Rule 101 of Order XXI CPC as it stands now. The observation of this Court while dismissing the CMA No. 93 of 1984 filed by the appellants herein has to be understood in this context. ( 15 ) SO far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the trial Court has taken the view that the deed of exchange was hit by Section 64 of CPC. The view taken by the executing Court in E. P. No. 55 of 1976 cannot be said to be a final adjudication on the issue; having regard to the provisions of Rule 103 of Order XXI as it stood in 1976. The view expressed by the executing Court can be said to be relevant only for the purpose of the execution proceedings and not a final adjudication. The question as to whether the attachment ordered by the authority under the Co-operative Societies Act would entail the consequences provided for under Section 64 of CPC needs to be addressed. Further the question of adverse possession pleaded by the appellants herein is also to be adjudicated and these are all matters which need to be dealt with through properly-framed issues and on the basis of evidence that the parties may adduce. The trial Court was not correct when it rejected the plaint, having regard to the facts and circumstances referred to above. The trial Court was not correct when it rejected the plaint, having regard to the facts and circumstances referred to above. ( 16 ) THE decree and judgment of the trial Court are accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. The trial Court is directed to register the plaint and expedite the trial and hearing of the suit treating the same as the one which was filed in the year 1991. There shall be no order as to costs.