agreement to sell in their favour executed by Devi Lal is considered to be true, the same would be of no avail as admittedly, in the earlier suit filed by the present plaintiff Virendra Kumar against Devi Lal and one another, Devi Lal was declared to be a trespasser and decree for eviction was passed in favour of Virendra Kumar. The applicants, who claim themselves to be owners of the property in question by virtue of an agreement to sell executed by Devi Lal, can even otherwise not claim any right once Devi Lal himself has been declared to be a trespasser by the Civil Court, which order has become final for all purposes. Secondly , it is admitted on record that the present applicants had even preferred objections under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC in the execution proceedings initiated against Devi Lal. The said objections were admittedly, rejected by the executing Court. Once the objections of the applicants have been rejected, the present application for leave to appeal qua the same judgment and decree cannot even otherwise be granted. Further, this Court is of the clear opinion that mere assertion of the applicants that they are affected and would be prejudiced by the impugned judgment and decree, cannot be a ground to grant the leave to appeal. The applicants have to demonstrate that their legal rights would stand jeopardised if the leave as prayed for is not granted.
