and 7 of 1998 were re-heard and were eventually, allowed by the High Court, by the judgment dated 11.11.2011 which is impugned herein. 8. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the predecessor of the respondents (Raghuthaman) did not establish his independent right, title or interest in the property in question and he was only a pendente lite transferee and therefore, he cannot resist the execution of a decree filed by the original plaintiff / decree holder. Additionally, the learned counsel submitted that the decision in Chiranji Lal (D) by LRs. v. Hari Das (D) by LRs.7 relied on by the High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the final decree was passed on 09.03.1970; it was engrossed 7(2005) 10 SCC 7465 on the stamp paper on 19.11.1990; the execution petition seeking delivery of possession of the property