Contrary to this learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the objections under Order 21, Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the objectors are not maintainable. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has got the decree in pursuance to the agreement and he has a right to execute the decree because the open plot, which was agreed to sale in favour of the respondent No.1 was not a part and parcel of the open land and the appellants have no easementary rights over the said plot. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hero Vinoth (minor). Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit before the Court pleading that he entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 through, son-in-law respondent No.2, who had a special power of attorney to sale the plot, ad-measuring 19 ft x 16 ft. at the rate of Rs. 150/- per Sq. ft. vide agreement dated 4-5-1990 and son-in-law of the respondent No.2 also received an advance of Rs. 5,000/-. She further agreed to put a boundary wall around the suit land and even after service of notice she did not perform her part of the contract. Before the trial Courtr respondent No.2 remained e parte and thereafter, the Court granted a decree of specific performance of contract in favour of the respondent No.1 with regard to execution of sale-deed of the suit land and also the defendant was directed that she would put a boundary wall around the suit land. In the proceedings of the execution of the decree, the appellants/objectors filed the objection pleading the facts mentioned in the judgment. In support of the execution of the decree, the decree holder, respondent No.1 examined himself with one witness. He deposed before the Cours that he entered into an agreement with the son-in-law of respondent No.2 with regard to sale of the suit plot at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 did not execute the sale-deed neither put him into the possession. He further stated that the plot was an open land and nobody has a right over the aforesaid plot. He pleaded his ignorance about the execution of sale-deeds by the respondent No.2 and other family members in favour of the objectors.