IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.400 OF 2010 (SAU. SUBHADRABAI ROHIDAS SONTAKKE & ORS...VS.. DAULATRAO BAPURJI PUNDE THR. LRS & oth..) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Ms. Barabde h/f. Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S.U. Nemade, Advocate for respondent. 1 (E). CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants are the objectors before the executing Court. The objectors had raised an objection before the executing Court seeking 1/5th share in the suit properties and they were the legal heirs of Sheshrao. The executing court, however, rejected the objection filed by the objectors/ appellants and the first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the executing Court. 3. It is necessary to note that Daulatrao, the original plaintiff had filed a suit against Sheshrao, the father of the appellants for grant of a decree of specific performance of contract. According to Daulatrao , Sheshrao had agreed to sell the suit property to Daulatrao for a valuable consideration. The decree in the suit filed by Daulatrao had attained finality and the execution proceedings were filed by Daulatrao against Sheshrao. In these proceedings the appellants filed the objections and claimed 1/5th share in the suit property. 4. Both the Courts rightly held on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record that the objection filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed as they had failed to prove that they had 1/5th share in the suit property and they were entitled to separate possession of 1/5th of their share in the suit property. The Courts held that though Sheshrao, the original judgment debtor had died in 1981 the objectors had not claimed any right in the suit property. It was the case of the decree holder that the objectors had surrendered their right in the suit property in favour of their brother and mother in the year 1991. Moreover, this court had held in the second appeal filed by Sheshrao against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts in favour of Daulatrao in the suit for specific performance of contract that Sheshrao, as a Karta of joint Hindu family, had alienated the suit property for legal necessity. This finding was binding on the objectors and hence, the Courts held that the objection filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed. 5. The findings recorded by both the Courts do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR.