Judgment in rem does not arise from ordinary inter partes findings on title, adoption, or attachment disputes.

A decision between other parties does not become a judgment in rem merely because it concerns title, adoption, or ownership of attached property. A judgment in rem binds the world only within the limited classes recognised by Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act; ordinary inter partes civil findings do not have that effect. The earlier High Court ruling, being confined to other litigants, could not bind the petitioner in execution objection proceedings. An order under Order 21 Rule 58, or a decree under Order 21 Rule 63, also operates only within the execution proceedings from which it arises. The objection was therefore not concluded by res judicata or judgment in rem.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier decision between other parties regarding the validity of the anti-adoption agreement and the ownership of the attached houses operated as a judgment in rem or as res judicata against the petitioner in the execution objection proceedings under Order 21 Rules 58 and 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: A judgment in rem binds the world at large only where it is rendered by a competent court in the limited classes contemplated by Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. A decision inter partes in ordinary civil litigation does not acquire that character merely because it decides title, adoption, or related property rights. The earlier High Court decision between other decree-holders and the petitioner was confined to those parties and could not conclude the present objection as a judgment in rem. An order on a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58, or a decree in a suit under Order 21 Rule 63, is also limited in effect to the execution proceedings out of which it arises and does not operate beyond them.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was not binding on the petitioner as a judgment in rem or as res judicata, and the attachment objection was required to be allowed.

---