1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7641 OF 2006. Smt.Manjulabai W/o Raosaheb Deshmukh ... Petitioner. Versus Laxman S/o Tulshiram Dere dead through L.Rs. (a) Late Sonabai W/o Laxman Dere and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.D.Bhalerao, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 10.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is J.D. who suffered decree for possession and redemption of mortgage in Civil Suit (RCS No.106/1983). The suit was 2 filed by deceased Respondent No.1 Laxman and his younger brother i.e. Respondent No.2 for redemption of mortgage. It was the case of the petitioner that the transaction was of sale with condition to repurchase within a stipulated period. The contentions of the petitioner were rejected by the Civil Court and the first Appellate Court. Thus, a joint decree for possession was rendered in favour of the two brothers i.e. the Respondents. In the first Appellate Court, the petitioner filed compromise deed entered into between herself and deceased Respondent No.1 - Laxman. It was contended that by virtue of a sale deed dated 1.7.1988, the deceased Respondent No.1 - Laxman alienated his undivided half share in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, she is entitled to claim such half share on account of attornment of rights of the deceased plaintiff No.1/respondent NO.1 - Laxman. The Respondents filed Execution Petition vide R.D. No.16/2003. The petitioner submitted an application in the proceedings of the execution vide Exh.19 and resisted the proceedings. She asserted that the decree has 3 been frustrated due to the intervening transfer of half share of deceased Respondent No.1 - Laxman in her favour. She contended that the decree is inexecutable. The Executing Court rejected her contentions in view of "Jagdish Datt & another Vs. Dharam Pal and others" AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1694. 3. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not obtain verification certificate as required U/o 21 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. so as to determine legality and validity of the adjustment during pendency of the execution. Secondly, it is a joint decree passed in favour of the deceased Respondent No.1 Laxman and the Respondent o.2 and, therefore, any one of them would have right to execute the same. The decree is indivisible. If undivided share of the deceased Respondent No.1 Laxman is purchased by the petitioner then remedy of such a purchaser, who is third party in relation to the joint family members, is to get the share determined by way of suit for partition and separate possession. The petitioner was original defendant 4 and is party to the decree. She being judgment debtor, has no right to resist execution of the decree inasmuch as she can not be termed as third party within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 97 of the C.P.Code. Considering these aspects, there is hardly any merit in the petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp764106