JUDGMENT : C.M. Poonacha, J. The present appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure , [hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'] calling in question the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Ex.No.27/2024 on the application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein under Order 39 Rule 2 of CPC by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal[ hereinafter referred to as 'Executing Court' ] wherein the Executing Court has allowed the application and restrained the decree holders/appellants herein from dispossessing the objectors from the execution schedule property till the disposal of the objector application. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the appellants instituted a suit in OS No.170/2024 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.04.2024. The respondents No.3 to 8 were arrayed as defendants No.1 to 6 in the said suit. The parties to the suit entered into a compromise dated 7.6.2024, wherein the defendants agreed to execute the sale deed within ten days and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. To execute the compromise decree passed in OS No.170/2024, Ex.No.27/2024 was filed by the appellants herein. 3. In the said execution petition, through a Court Commissioner, a sale deed dated 12.11.2024 has been executed in favour of appellants/decree holders herein. On 30.11.2024, the appellants sought to file a memo before the Executing Court recording full satisfaction of the decree sought to be executed. On the said date, the respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed an application under Order XXI Rules 58, 97, 98, 99, 101 read with under Section 151 of CPC objecting to the execution of the decree. The said respondents No.1 and 2 also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC to restrain the decree holders, his agents, from dispossessing them from possession of the execution schedule property. The appellants, who are the decree holders, objected to the said application. The Executing Court by order dated 20.2.2025 allowed the said application and passed the following: "ORDER I.A. filed by the objector U/o 39 Rule 2 of CPC is hereby allowed. The DHRs are hereby restrained from dispossessing the objectors from schedule property till disposal of the objector application. No order as to costs" 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. The DHRs are hereby restrained from dispossessing the objectors from schedule property till disposal of the objector application. No order as to costs" 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel, Sri K R Ramesh, for the appellant, and the learned counsel Sri Krishnamurthy M R, for the respondents No.1 and 2. 6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, the Executing Court has gone beyond the scope of execution proceedings in injuncting the decree holders and submits that, having regard to the fact that the decree holders sought to file a memo recording satisfaction of the decree, the execution proceedings ought to have been closed by the Executing Court. It is contended that the Executing Court erred in allowing the application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2, while justifying the order passed by the Executing Court, contends that the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024 has been executed by the children and grand-children of the propositus, Doddahonnaiah through his second wife. That the respondents No.1 and 2 are the son and daughter-in-law through the first wife of the propositus. It is further contended that admittedly, the execution schedule property, which is the subject matter of agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024, was the joint family property of Doddahonnaiah, which has not been partitioned. That in the absence of the property having been partitioned, the vendors under the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024, who were the defendants in OS No.170/2024, could not have alienated any specific portion of the joint family property. Hence, he contends that the order passed by the Executing Court is just and proper. 8. Rebutting the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that since OS No.82/2025 has been filed seeking for partition and other reliefs, the order passed by the Executing Court requires to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused. 10. The question that arises for consideration is, “whether the Executing Court was justified in allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2 of CPC filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein?”. 11. 9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record has been perused. 10. The question that arises for consideration is, “whether the Executing Court was justified in allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2 of CPC filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein?”. 11. The essential factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as, the children and grand children of the propositus through his second wife (except Nanjundaiah) have executed the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024, wherein they agreed to convey an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas out of 2 acres 9.08 guntas (including 1.08 guntas kharab) in Sy.No.140/3 (old Sy.No.140/2) situated at Channapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District to appellants herein. The said vendors, not having executed the sale deed in terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 15.4.2024, the appellants have instituted a suit in OS No.170/2024 for specific performance. It is further forthcoming from the records that a compromise decree was passed in OS No.170/2024. To execute the same, Ex.No.27/2024 was filed by the appellants. It is undisputed that the Executing Court through a Court Commissioner executed a registered sale deed dated 12.11.2024 conveying the execution schedule property in favour of the appellants/decree holders. It is further undisputed that on 30.11.2024, when the appellants sought to file a memo regarding satisfaction of the decree and sought for closure of the execution proceedings, the respondents No.1 and 2, who are the son and daughter-in-law of the propositus through his first wife, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58, 98, 98, 99 and 101 of CPC objecting the decree, and have also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 of CPC for injunction. 12. 12. It is relevant to note here that the son and daughter-in-law of the propositus through his (second wife) (i.e., Nanjundaiah and Jayalakshmi), who are not the parties to the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024 as well as in OS No.170/2024, have instituted the suit in OS No.82/2025 seeking for the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants herein: (a) For partition and separate possession of plaintiff no.1 legitimate share of 1/4 th out of half share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds, (b) To declare that the compromise decree dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Additional Senior Civil Judge Kunigal in O.S.No.170/2024 was passed is out of fraud play by the defendant No.3 to 10 not only against the court but also against the plaintiffs as such the judgment and decree is a nullity and bad in law and legality unenforceable., (c) To declare that the registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.2024 executed in favour of defendant No.9 and 10 in Execution Petition No.27/2024 by the Hon'ble Court and the alleged registered agreement of Sale and General Power Attorney dated 15.04.2024 executed by the Defendant No.3 to 8 in favour of Defendant No.9 and 10 are null and void bad in law and not binding on the Plaintiffs to the extent of their right, title interest and possession in any manner, (c) To declare that the registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.2024 executed in favour of defendant No.9 and 10 in Execution petition No.27/2024 by the Hon'ble Court and the alleged registered Agreement of Sale and General Power Attorney dated 15.04.2024 executed by the Defendant No.3 to 8 in favour of Defendant No.9 and 10 are null and void bad in law and not binding on the Plaintiffs to the extent of their right, title interest and possession in any manner, (d) And, to pass judgment ad Decree of Permanent Injunction against the Defendant No.9 and 10 as a consequential relief restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the Plaintiff in any manner. (e) Pass such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit to Grant in the facts and circumstance of the case to meet the ends of justice." 13. (e) Pass such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit to Grant in the facts and circumstance of the case to meet the ends of justice." 13. It is clear from the aforementioned that from amongst the members of the family of the propositus, the son and daughter-in-law of the propositus thorugh his second wife, namely Nanjundiah and Jayalakshmi, who are not parties to the agreement of sale, have instituted OS No.82/2025. The son and daughter-in-law of the propositus through the first wife, namely Gangadharaiah and Hanumamma (Respondents No.1 & 2 herein) are also not parties to the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024 and have filed the applications before the Executing Court. 14. The appellants, who are the purchasers under the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024, have agreed to purchase an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas out of 2 acres 9.08 guntas (including 1.08 guntas kharab) in Sy.No.140/3 (old Sy.No.140/2) situated at Channapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District that has been alienated by some of the co-sharers consequent to the said agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024 and compromise decree, which was passed in OS No.170/2024. The said property is stated to be undivided portion of the property of the propositus. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajara Vishnu Gosavi -vs- Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble and others , [ (2009) 10 SCC 654 ] wherein it has been held as follows: "7. The parties led evidence and after considering the same, the trial court came to the conclusion that no partition had ever taken place. Therefore, Housabai could not claim any specific share in the property. She could be a co-sharer in common and joint possession. As the partition had never been effected, the question of handing over of the possession either to the present appellant- plaintiff or her vendee could not arise. Therefore, her possession was merely a forcible possession and was not valid and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19-12-1991. The trial court observed that at the most on the basis of the sale deed Anjirabai and thereafter appellant-plaintiff could become the owner in common along with respondent-defendants in respect of the suit property but as there was no partition, the appellant-plaintiff could not be in lawful possession. 11. The trial court observed that at the most on the basis of the sale deed Anjirabai and thereafter appellant-plaintiff could become the owner in common along with respondent-defendants in respect of the suit property but as there was no partition, the appellant-plaintiff could not be in lawful possession. 11. In a recent judgment in Ramdas v. Sitabai to which one of us (Dr.B S Chauhan, J.) was a party, placing reliance upon two earlier judgment of this Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao v. M.narasimhaswami and Sidheshwar Mukerjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Nairain Singh this Court came to the conclusion that a purchaser of a coparcenter's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. He has a right only to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment of his share in the suit property." (emphasis supplied) 16. Having regard to the aforementioned factual matrix and legal position, it is clear that the appellants are claiming to be the owners to an extent 1 acre 4 guntas out of 2 acres 9.08 guntas (including 1.08 guntas kharab) in Sy.No.140/3 (old Sy.No.140/2) situated at Channapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District, and they have purchased the same from some of the co-owners of the family of the propositus vide Agreement of Sale dated 15.4.2024, compromise decree passed in O.S. No.170/2024 and Sale Deed dated 12.11.2024 executed during the course of proceedings in Ex. No.27/2024. There is no material on record to demonstrate as to whether they have been put into actual physical possession of any specific extent/portion of the property purchased by them. 17. The vehement contention put forth on behalf of the appellants that the execution proceedings are required to be closed, since the sale deed executed is required to be construed from the perspective that the possession claimed by the appellants pursuant to the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 is that of a co-owner claiming through the vendors of the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024, is not liable to be accepted since the remaining co-owners, who are not parties to the agreement of sale dated 15.4.2024 and OS No.170/2024, having objected to the execution of decree have also filed OS No.82/2024. It is clear that the appellants herein have to initiate/participate in the appropriate legal proceedings for the purpose of claiming possession of any specified extent/portion of the property that has been purchased by them under the Sale Deed dated 12.11.2024. 18. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that OS No.82/2025 has been instituted for substantial reliefs, and the appellants as well as the respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the parties to the said suit. 19. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 20. In view of the aforementioned, having regard to the fact that the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 has already been executed by the Executing Court in favour of the appellants/ decree holders, it is just and proper that the present appeal be disposed of, directing closure of the execution proceedings with a specific observation that the appellants shall be entitled to claim possession of any specific portion/extent of the property purchased by them by claiming appropriate right, title and interest as co-owners claiming through their vendors vide the sale deed dated 12.11.2024 by participating in OS No.82/2025. It is further ordered that the respondents No.1 and 2 shall not be disturbed from possession of their property except in terms of the order that may be passed in OS No.82/2025. 21. Ordered accordingly.