raise objections against execution of decree passed in favour of the respondent. Further, Rule 99 pertains to making a complaint to the Court against “dispossession” of the9 immovable property by the person in “possession” of the property by the holder of a decree or purchaser thereof. “25. It is factually not in dispute that the appellant purchased the said property from Mr Yogesh Mishra vide sale deed dated 12-4-2004 and has been in vacant and physical possession of the property since then. Had it been the case that the appellant was dispossessed by the respondent Trust in execution of decree dated 2-9-2003, the appellant would have been well within the ambit of Rule 99 to make an application seeking appropriate relief to be put back in possession. On the contrary, the appellant in the instant case was never dispossessed from the property in question and till date, as contended and unrefuted, the possession of same rests with the appellant. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant