IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 998 of 2010(O) ------------------------ EA NO.491/2010 IN EP NO.151/2007 IN OS.796/2001 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, POLLAYIL KARUPPASSERIL, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JAYASREE JEEVANKUMAR, W/O.JEEVANKUMAR, REVATHY, PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. GUNA VADHYAR, THEKKANADAYIL, PUTHEN MADATHIL, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001. 3. SUSEELA VADHYAR, D/O.YAMUNA BAI, PUTHEN MADATHIL, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.998 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the claimant in E.A.No.167 of 2009 in E.P.No.151 of 2007 in O.S.No.796 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha . He made a claim over the suit property under Rules 97 and 99 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming to be a tenant under respondent No.3/judgment debtor. Pending proceeding, decree holder No.2 expired and thereon petitioner filed E.A.No.491 of 2010 to implead legal representatives of deceased decree holder No.2 as additional respondents in E.A.No.167 of 2009. That application was dismissed on a finding that even before the decree was passed, decree holder No.2 had assigned his right in the property to respondent No.1/decree holder No.1 and that decree holder No.2 was impleaded in the suit only as the assignor. 2. I have heard learned counsel. It is on the specific finding that decree holder No.2 had no right over the property at the time of death as he had already assigned it in favour of respondent No.1/decree holder No.1 that executing court refused to implead legal representatives of deceased decree holder No.2. There is nothing on record to hold that deceased decree holder OP(C) No.998/2010 2 No.2 had any right over the property on the date of death so that legal representatives were required to be impleaded. I do not therefore find reason to interfere. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks