in-law of the appellant had suffered decree in O.S.No.59/1998 and as against that judgment and decree, he had preferred an appeal and the said appeal is also dismissed. Hence, it is clear that the decree has attained its finality. During the pendency of the execution petition, the objector, who is none other than the mother-in-law of the judgment-debtor who had suffered the decree has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The objector claims that her husband had purchased the property from Vilavanathan in respect of Sy.No.1/58 and the learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the decree is obtained in respect of the very same property and hence the appellant, who succeeded to the estate of her husband Lingappa has got right in respect of the property. According to the counsel, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of her husband Lingappa it is mentioned that East, West and South Government land and north Sy.No.1/58. It is the claim of the appellant that Sy.No.1/158 is allotted in favour of the original grantee Vilavanathan and from him, her husband had purchased the property and hence there cannot be northern boundary Sy.No.1/58 i.e., one aspect. The boundaries mentioned in the decree, East, West and South, no doubt it is Government lands.
