R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS execution second appeal has been filed by the judgment debtors against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Barnala, dated August 13, 1973, by which he affirmed the judgment of the executing Court dismissing the objections of the judgment -debtors.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the present controversy are that a suit for possession by pre -emption in respect of 16 kanals 11 marlas of land was instituted by Teja Singh against Joginder Singh, Maghar Singh and Ujagar Singh. A decree for possession was passed against them by the trial Court on March 29, 1969, on payment of Rs. 3,630/ -. Joginder Singh et cetera vendees went up in appeal against that decree. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties on January 1, 1971, Teja Singh pre -emptor admitted before the appellate Court that two of the vendees were minors. Joginder Singh, who was the real brother of the minors and had filed appeal on their behalf, sought permission of the Court to enter into the compromise in the appeal on behalf of the minors. The appellate Court granted him the requisite permission. He made a statement on his own behalf and on behalf of the minors that the decree of the trial Court be modified and decree for possession be passed in favour of Teja Singh on payment of Rs. 6,430/ -, as the price of the land. The decree of the trial Court was amended by the appellate Court accordingly. It ordered that an additional amount of Rs. 1,800/ - be deposited on or before June 15, 1971. He deposited the amount before that date. An execution was taken out by Teja Singh in terms of the (sic)ecree. The judgment -debtors filed objections against the decree (sic)ating that Ujagar Singh and Maghar Singh were minors, and that (sic) trial Court no guardian ad litem was appointed for them. They (sic)eged that the decree of the trial Court was, therefore, a nullity, They (sic)hey further stated that the decree being a nullity could not be (sic)odified by the appellate Court and executed. The decree -holder (sic)ontested the objection petition. On the pleadings of the parties, (sic)e Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether objectors -judgment -debtors are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present objection petition ? (2) Whether the decree is inexecutable as alleged ?
(3.) THE executing Court decided both the issues against the judgment -debtors and dismissed their objections. An appeal by them against that judgment was also dismissed. They have come up in Execution second appeal to this Court.;