JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.PC.') is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 16.8.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Appeal No. 60/1977 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1976 passed by the Civil Judge, Alwar, in Civil Suit No. 187/1973, whereby the suit of plaintiff Prem Narain was decreed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the second appeal are that plaintiff Prem Narain filed present civil suit under Order 21 Rule 63 C.P.C. in the lower court on 28.1.1970 against three defendants, namely, Hari Ram S/o Ram Chandra, Bhalla Ram S/o Shri Ram Chandra and Hari Prasad adopted son of Ram Kanwar, wherein it was pleaded that a decree in Civil Suit No. 360/66 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 340.75p. was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 3 Hari Prasad on 7.9.1966 by the Court of Munsiff and, in execution thereof, the property, in dispute, was attached on. 17.9.1966. Thereafter, defendants no. 1 and 2, namely Hari Ram and Bhalla Ram, filed Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the C.P.C. stating therein that they had purchased the attached property from Mst. Durga through sale-deed dated 2.7.1962, therefore their house could not have been attached for execution of money-decree against Hari Prasad. The lower court allowed the Objection Petition of defendants no. 1 and 2 and released the attached property. It was also pleaded that the defendant no. 3 Hari Prasad was adopted by Mst. Durga as a son for her husband Ram Kanwar, therefore, he also became owner of the property, in dispute, left by late Ram Kanwar, being his adopted son. The said property could not have been sold by Mst. Durga alone, hence the said property could have been attached in execution of money-decree for Rs. 340.75p. passed against Hari Prasad. Therefore, it was prayed in the plaint that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the property, in dispute, can be attached and sold in pursuance of the decree in Civil Suit No. 360/66 for Rs. 340.75p. in favour of the plaintiff (Prem Narain) and against defendant no. 3 Hari Prasad. 4. Defendant no. Therefore, it was prayed in the plaint that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the property, in dispute, can be attached and sold in pursuance of the decree in Civil Suit No. 360/66 for Rs. 340.75p. in favour of the plaintiff (Prem Narain) and against defendant no. 3 Hari Prasad. 4. Defendant no. 3 Hari Prasad, who is real brother of plaintiff Prem Narain, in his written statement admitted all the contents of the plaint including the fact that he had gone in adoption on 7th of July, 1957 to Mst. Durga and he also became the owner of the property, in dispute, and therefore, the same can be attached in execution of money-decree passed against him and in favour of plaintiff Prem Narain. 5. Defendants no. 1 and 2, namely, Hari Ram and Bhalla Ram, contested the suit and pleaded in the written statement that it is a collusive suit in between, the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3, who are real brothers. It was also pleaded that the defendants no. 1 and 2 both had purchased the property, in dispute, through registered sale-deed from Mst. Durga on 2nd of July, 1962, therefore, they are the owner of the property, in dispute. 6. The learned lower court framed necessary issues. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned lower court, vide its judgment and decree dated 16.10.1976, decreed the suit of plaintiff Prem Narain against defendants Hari Ram, Bhalla Ram and Hari Prasad, and declared that disputed property can be attached and sold in pursuance of money-decree passed in Suit No. 360/66. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant no. 1 Hari Ram S/o Ram Chandra as well as present appellants, who were not party in the suit, preferred regular first appeal. 7. The first appellate court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.8.1985, dismissed the appeal of appellant Hari Ram. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants filed this second appeal. 8. 1 Hari Ram S/o Ram Chandra as well as present appellants, who were not party in the suit, preferred regular first appeal. 7. The first appellate court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.8.1985, dismissed the appeal of appellant Hari Ram. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants filed this second appeal. 8. While admitting the second appeal, this Court on 5.11.1985 framed following two substantial questions of law for adjudication in this second appeal: "(1) Whether Smt. Durga having become the full owner of the properties left by her husband, Shri Ram Kanwar (deceased) by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, which came into force with effect from 17th of June, 1956, could have been divested of her ownership rights on account of the alleged adoption of Shri Hari Prasad, by Smt. Durga to her deceased husband, Shri Ram Kanwar, on 7th of July, 1957? (2) Whether Hari Prasad being a married person and having two children had been validly adopted by Smt. Durga on 7th of July, 1957? Whether he could be adopted? 9. Thereafter, an additional substantial question of law for adjudication was also framed on 27th of July, 2006, which is reproduced as under: "Whether the appellants who were the bona fide pre-emptors and having deposited the amount in the learned trial court in pursuance of the pre-emption decree, which had been confirmed upto this Hon'ble Court in Civil Second Appeal No. 387 of 1973 - Hari Ram v. Smt. Poona Devi decided on 4th of January, 1985 , could be deprived of their rights in the property, in question, in execution of the decree for a sum of Rs. 340.75 by the decree holder/plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein), which was obtained in collusion against Shri Hari Prasad, his own brother?" 10. Learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ajay Gupta, contended that late Kailash Nath and Nanga @ Janki Nath filed a suit for pre-emption, i.e., Suit No. 269/63 in respect of property, in dispute, when the same was sold by Mst. Durga through registered sale-deed dated 2nd/3rd July, 1962 in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2, namely, Hari Ram and Bhalla Ram. The present appellants are legal representatives and heirs of late Shri Kailash Nath and Shri Nanga @ Janki Nath. The suit for pre-emption was decreed and that decree was upheld upto the High Court. Durga through registered sale-deed dated 2nd/3rd July, 1962 in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2, namely, Hari Ram and Bhalla Ram. The present appellants are legal representatives and heirs of late Shri Kailash Nath and Shri Nanga @ Janki Nath. The suit for pre-emption was decreed and that decree was upheld upto the High Court. Thereafter, the amount was deposited and in pursuance of the pre-emption' decree the appellants got possession of the property, in dispute, and since then they are enjoying the property. They were not aware about the present suit filed by plaintiff Prem Narain against three defendants, namely, Hari Ram, Bhalla Ram and Hari Prasad. The judgment and decree passed by the lower court as well as the lower appellate court are not binding on them as they are the owners of the property, in dispute. The lower court has passed a decree to attach the property, in dispute, which belongs to the appellants in pursuance of the money-decree passed against one Hari Prasad who has no concern with the disputed property. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also argued the case at length and supported the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that the property in dispute has not been attached till now in pursuance of the decree of the lower court dated 16.10.1976 and as and when the disputed property is attached then the appellants may file objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the C.P.C. claiming their right over the property, in dispute. However, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that their further right may be protected by passing an interim stay order during the pendency of the Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the C.P.C. in case necessity so arises to file the Objection Petition and it may further be observed that the findings of both the courts below may not come in the way of the Executing Court while deciding the Objection Petition of the appellants. 13. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable in the eye of law as even otherwise as per settled legal position the property cannot be sold during the pendency of the Objection Petition and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below were not passed after hearing the present appellants, therefore, any observation made therein will not come in the way of the Executing Court while deciding the Objection Petition filed by the appellants. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and agreement in between both the parties, it is not necessary to decide the present second appeal on the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal, as referred above, and, as agreed by both the parties, following order is passed: 1. The second appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the present appellants to file Objection Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the C.P.C. before the Executing Court in case the property, in dispute, is attached in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1976 passed by the Civil Judge, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 187/1973, which has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar, vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.1985 in Civil Appeal No. 60/1977; 2. The property, in dispute, will not be auctioned and sold in case the Objection Petition is preferred by the present appellants, till the s Objection Petition of the appellants is finally decided. Both the parties shall maintain the status-quo in respect of the property, in dispute, during the pendency of the Objection Petition; 3. The Objection Petition of the appellants shall be tried and disposed of as a regular suit in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 of the C.P.C., after affording opportunity to lead evidence and hearing to both the parties and without being influenced by finding or observations made by both the courts below in the impugned judgments and decree dated 16.10.1976 and 16.8.1985; 4. It will be open for the present appellants to satisfy the s money-decree in Civil Suit No. 360/66 by depositing the full amount as per decree. It will be open for the present appellants to satisfy the s money-decree in Civil Suit No. 360/66 by depositing the full amount as per decree. In case any amount has been deposited during the pendency of this second appeal then the same shall be adjusted by the Executing Court provided the appellants file a proof having deposited the amount. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the second appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. *******