( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2009 Janardhan s/o Eknath Wagh Since deceased, by L.Rs. Nandabai w/o Janardhan Wagh and others. APPELLANTS VERSUS Abdulla Bin Saleh and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.D. Kasliwal, advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.A. Khan, advocate for the respondent No. 2 (ii). ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. Original plaintiff Fatemabee and her two daughters had filed suit for partition and separate possession (Spl. C.S. No. 4/1968). They claimed share in land survey No. 62, land survey No. 104, land survey No. 107 and land survey No. 61. The suit was decreed and the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek ( 2 ) separate shares. The first appeal preferred by the defendants in this Court (F.A. No. 74/1970) was partly allowed and shares of original plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were modified. The present appellant is purchaser of land survey No. 62 from original defendant No.1, namely, Abdul-bin Saleh (since deceased). He purchased the land vide sale-deed dated 02-02-1984 from Rangnath Gopinath. Said Rangnath had purchased the said land from defendant No.1 on 03-12-1968 while the suit was pending. 3. Admittedly, vendor of the appellants was not a party to the earlier suit for partition and separate possession nor the appellants got themselves impleaded in the suit proceedings. The appellants filed objection petition when the decree was being executed vide the execution petition No. 14/1986. They contended that the decree was not executable against them for the reason that they were not parties of the suit proceedings. They further contended that the decree was inoperative against them because they are the bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. They further contended that share of original defendants was not carved out and, ( 3 ) therefore, the decree itself was collusive in as much as there was previous partition in 1954 which was duly registered, yet, was suppressed in the earlier proceedings. The executing Court rejected the objection petition. The appeal preferred by the appellants before the first Appellate Court was also dismissed. 4. In my opinion, the appellants cannot claim independent rights. They claimed their rights from the original defendants and, therefore, have stepped into the shoes of judgement-debtors. They cannot be regarded as the obstructionists within the meaning of Rule 97 of Order-XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. They are bound by the decree when their vendors had never challenged the correctness of the decree and that original defendants never disputed the shares of the plaintiffs. A grievance is made that shares of the defendants was being carved out in the execution of the same decree. It is argued that in the partition suit, the shares of the plaintiffs alone were carved out and, therefore, now it was not open to segregate the shares of the defendants. I do not agree. It is well settled that in ( 4 ) a partition suit, everyone is plaintiff and each of the party is defendant with inter-changeable positions. Obviously, when the shares of the plaintiffs were determined, it follows that shares of the defendants were crystallized and were liable to be carved out. The partition decree cannot be termed as partly executable to the extent of shares which were specifically carved out in favour of the plaintiffs and in-executable to the extent of the shares of the defendants. The objection petitioners could not claim any independent right and as such, it is not necessary to permit re-opening of the issues which have been finally decided against vendors of the appellants. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa681-09