4.The first contention raised in the Section 47 application will not fall within the four corners of Section 47. Section 47 only enables objections as to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. A perusal of the written statement filed in the suit shows that the very same contentions regarding the description in settlement deed of the year 1921 were raised in the suit and though they were accepted by the trial Court, the judgment of the trial Court was overturned in appeal. Therefore, the claim that the property, which is subject matter of the suit is the western portion of Survey No.575, which was settled by the ancestor to the defendants under the settlement deed of the year 1921 has been specifically rejected by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the same question cannot be re-agitated under Section 47. I am also convinced that the question raised viz., regarding the identity of the property does not relate to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree, within the meaning of Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the same cannot be agitated under Section 47. As regards the second objection, though some of the legal heirs of Pappu @ Michael Udayar have not been made parties to the suit, it is for them to object to the decree and the petitioners being the judgment debtors, having suffered a decree, cannot raise the question, regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, more so, when they have not raised it during trial.
