for such constructions to come up after the institution of the suit, he cannot have the benefit of retention of the property unless the property where the construction has come was subsequently allotted to him in the final decree. He had not applied for final decree and the plaintiff has been 11-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 2016granted the share which is now occupied by the defendant. The final decree must go to the next logical stage of making available the property for recovery of possession and the objection taken by the defendant in relation to the execution of the decree after the final decree was passed cannot be sustained. The Court has the power to demolish the construction, if the petitioner-objector does not voluntarily do so.” 9. Aggrieved by the above findings, revision was preferred thereagainst and by order dated 20th November, 2015, the same was dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the objections