binding on him and his claim is liable to be adjudicated and his claim petition is liable to be decided independently, even the E.P.No.32 of 2012 is not maintainable for the same filed against a dead person. The claim petition vide E.A.No.2 of 2013, like an independent suit, is required to be adjudicated from what is contemplated by Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, at least by taken the same as obstruction to the delivery from the independent claim made by the third person who need not wait till dispossession to maintain a claim under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, but for before his dispossession even from what is laid down by the Apex Court in Brahmadeo Chowdary supra, leave about the earlier expressions in this regard in Bhanwarlal Vs. Satyanarayana3 and Babulal Vs. Rajkumar4 . Thus, the independent claim of the revision petitioner made in E.A.No.2 of 2013 on merits is decided and also if at all on merits it is found that said claim of him is unsustainable and he is also the person bound by the decree, then only it is to be ordered under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC, for re-delivery by showing him as one of the J.Drs. to take possession. Thereby without deciding on merits the E.A.No.2 of 2013, merely because even from the Muslim law of inheritance for wife is entitled to 1/ 8th share; daughter, where there is no son, is entitled to 2/ 3rd and the remaining that goes back to the descendants of the father i.e. the full brother is one of such descendants, he cannot be shown as one of the legal representatives along with the wife and daughter of the sole J.Dr. for being the brother of the sole J.Dr., unless there is a finding of his claim, in E.A.No.2 of 2013 won’t lie on merits and he is also the person in possession as legal representative of the J.Dr. and bound by the decree under the guise of D.Hr’s showing him as one of the legal representatives of the J.Dr. when it is not his claim through the
