https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291491 Questions of legitimacy and heirship were held not to be competent for determination in execution proceedings because the statutory execution provisions did not extend to deciding such a serious controversy, and the admission of a legal representative applied only at earlier stages of the suit. The person seeking execution did not become a party to the suit merely by applying for execution. The earlier finding on legitimacy therefore lacked jurisdictional foundation and could not operate as res judicata, since a binding bar requires a decision by a court acting within competent jurisdiction. The appellate challenge failed, and the decree remained executable with costs. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 1876 00:00:00 +0521 Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:45:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291491 Questions of legitimacy and heirship were held not to be competent for determination in execution proceedings because the statutory execution provisions did not extend to deciding such a serious controversy, and the admission of a legal representative applied only at earlier stages of the suit. The person seeking execution did not become a party to the suit merely by applying for execution. The earlier finding on legitimacy therefore lacked jurisdictional foundation and could not operate as res judicata, since a binding bar requires a decision by a court acting within competent jurisdiction. The appellate challenge failed, and the decree remained executable with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Nov 1876 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291491