JUDGMENT 1. This suit has been rightly dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The appellant holds a decree against one Cheriyakkan Nair; and after his death he sought to execute it against the present 1st respondent alleging that the property was in possession of the present 1st respondent as the judgment-debtors representative. The petition for execution was dismissed on the ground that the present 1st respondent was not the legal representative of the appellants judgment-debtor. Then the appellant instituted the present suit and in it he asks for a declaration that the property belonged to his judgment debtor. He alleges that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, but he does not ask for a declaration that the 1st defendant is the legal representative of Cheriyakkan Nair. It is settled law that any question arising between the judgment-creditor and the legal representative of the judgment-debtor must be decided in execution. If the plaintiff wanted to establish that the present 1st respondent is the legal representative of his judgment-debtor, he might maintain the suit. That is not, however, the scope of his suit and we, therefore, think that the suit has been rightly dismissed. 2. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.