considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records carefully and meticulously. 11. The facts narrated above are not disputed. Concededly, in the suit filed by the original plaintiff, preliminary decree was passed on 23.10.1958; final decree was passed on 09.03.1970 and it was engrossed on stamp paper on 19.11.1990; and the Execution Petition seeking delivery of possession of the suit properties, came to be filed only on 13.03.1991. It is also to be noted that in the final decree, there was no order directing the parties to furnish stamp papers for the purpose of engrossing the decree. 12. Seemingly, the predecessor of the respondents claimed right, title and interest qua 78.5 cents forming part of item no.4 of the plaint schedule property, by virtue of the assignment deed dated 01.12.1964 bearing No.3669 executed by6 the Defendant No.10. Pursuant to the order of the Executing Court, he was dispossessed from the subject property, in