Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. In this appeal on 22.02.2012 following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. Order reserved. Yesterday the court had inquired from learned counsel for the appellant as to whether appellant was ready to pay Rs.1.80 lacs to the respondents. Today Shri S.C.Tripathi, learned counsel states that the appellant is ready to pay the aforesaid amount however, Shri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondents states that his clients are not ready to accept the said amount and that even before the courts below respondents had offered Rs.1.50 lacs to the defendant appellant which was not accepted. It has further been stated that respondents are still ready to pay the said amount or even some more amount. Learned counsel for the appellant states that his client is also ready to enhance the amount to some extent. Until delivery of order status quo as prevailing today shall be maintained. Neither any demolition shall take place nor any construction shall be made by either of the parties." 2. In Execution Case No.12 of 1996 filed for execution of decree passed in Original Suit No.127 of 1949 Manohar Lal Kanodia Vs. Dhan Rajee, appellant Suresh Chandra Tripathi filed objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the form of Case No.176/74 of 2005 claiming independent right in part of the house which was sub judice in the said suit and execution case. The objections were rejected on 13.07.2009 by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Nagar. By virtue of Order 21 Rule 103 CPC such type of order is decree and appealable as such. Accordingly, against the said order/decree Suresh Chandra Tripathi the objection filed Civil Appeal No.85 of 2009 which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar on 14.12.2011 hence this second appeal. 3. House No.85/74 was in dispute in O.S.No.127 of 1949. The present dispute relates to part of the said house. Dhan Rajee defendant in O.S.No.127 of 1949 died in the year 1968. She was survived by two sons Indra Prasad and Ram Subhag. However, in the appealwhich had been filed by Dhan Rajee (Civil Appeal No.69 of 1963) against decree passed by the trial Court only Indra Prasad was substituted at the place of Dhan Rajee but not Ram Subhag the other son. She was survived by two sons Indra Prasad and Ram Subhag. However, in the appealwhich had been filed by Dhan Rajee (Civil Appeal No.69 of 1963) against decree passed by the trial Court only Indra Prasad was substituted at the place of Dhan Rajee but not Ram Subhag the other son. Ram Subhag filed O.S. No.113 of 1989 against Indra Prasad which was decreed through compromise on 03.02.1993 and the portion of the house in dispute fell in the share of Ram Subhag. The case of the appellant is that he was inducted in a part of house no.85/74 as tenant by Indra Prasad. Further case is that after the compromise decree dated 03.02.1993 passed in O.S. No.113 of 1989 in between the two brothers, the said portion fell in the share of Ram Subhag hence the appellant on 13.07.1999 through registered sale deed purchased the said portion (already in his tenancy occupation) from heirs of Ram Subhag as he had died. It was further contended, and it was the main point, by the appellant that decree passed in O.S.No.127 of 1949 was not binding upon Ram Subhag as he was not impleaded therein and as appellant had purchased the property from the heirs of Ram Subhag after his death hence was neither Ram Subhag nor his heirs nor the appellant bound by the decree passed in O.S. No.127 of 1949. Both the courts below have rightly rejected this contention. 4. Ram Subhag never cared to get himself impleaded in O.S. No.127 of 1949 after death of his mother Dhan Rajee, who was defendant therein. Even in the appeal filed against the decree passed in the said suit he did not get himself impleaded/substituted. On the doctrine of sufficient representation of the estate Ram Subhag is as much bound by the decree passed in the O.S. No.127 of 1949 as his brother Indra Prasad who was substituted in the suit at place of Dhan Rajee. Moreover, if it is held that Ram Subhag had no concern with the house in dispute and it was Indra Prasad who alone inherited the house from his mother Dhand Rajee still appellant cannot any benefit. Both the brothers Ram Subhag and Indra Prasad got O.S.No.113 of 1989 decreed through compromise on 03.02.1993. Moreover, if it is held that Ram Subhag had no concern with the house in dispute and it was Indra Prasad who alone inherited the house from his mother Dhand Rajee still appellant cannot any benefit. Both the brothers Ram Subhag and Indra Prasad got O.S.No.113 of 1989 decreed through compromise on 03.02.1993. Accordingly, Ram Subhag got the property (house in dispute) from his brother Indra Prasad hence he cannot claim better right than Indra Prasad or any right independently of Indra Prasad. 5. There is no question of applicability of Section 41 Transfer of Property Act in such scenario. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned findings. No question of law has wrongly been decided by the courts below. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. 7. However, as on the suggestion of the Court, learned counsel for the respondents agreed to pay even more than Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant hence it is directed that before actual eviction of the appellant, respondents shall deposit Rs. 2 lac before the Executing Court and thereafter the appellant shall forthwith be evicted and after eviction the said amount of Rs.2 lac shall be paid to the appellant. However, if appellant fails to vacate the disputed portion of the house in question after deposit of Rs.2 lacs then for every month an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2 lac and on actual vacation, deducted amount shall be paid to the respondents and balance amount shall be paid to the appellant e.g. if the appellant vacates the house after four months of deposit of Rs.2 lac by the respondents then appellant shall be paid Rs.1,80,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- (at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for four months) be returned to the respondents. _