Judgment :- 1. The 3rd plaintiff in O.S. No.148 of 1096 of the District Court of Kottayam assigned his rights under that decree to the appellant on 5th Dhanu 1120 and they filed a joint petition for execution on 1st Thulam 1122 on the basis of the said assignment. The 3rd plaintiff died thereafter and respondents 1 to 4 (members of his tarwad) filed an application - C.M.P. No. 505 dated 26th Chingam 1124 - before the District Court of Mavelikara where the decree was pending execution for being impleaded as the representatives of the 3rd plaintiff. That application was allowed and hence this appeal. 2. The contention of respondents 1 to 4 is that the rights of the 3rd plaintiff under the decree in O.S. No. 148 of 1096 were really those of his tarwad and that under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, they are entitled (and bound) to have the matter agitated in the execution proceedings themselves and not by way of a separate suit. 3. We cannot agree. In view of the assignment in favour of the appellant and the joint application filed thereafter we do not see any reason whatsoever for bringing respondents 1 to 4 on record in these proceedings. Whatever contentions they have can and should be agitated by way of a separate suit and not in the manner they have proposed to do. 4. As pointed out by Chitaley (Code of Civil Procedure, Volume I, page 569): "The words for the purposes of this section in sub-s. (3) (of S.47) clearly show that sub-s. (3) is not independent of but is ancillary to sub-s. (1) and therefore comes into operation only when there is a question arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It does not, therefore, apply to a case in which the question is between rival representatives of one party, the other party not having any interest in the question." 5. The position is summed up as follows in Rama Maruthi Changuli v. Mallappa Krishna Changuli AIR 1942 Bom. 309. "Under sub-s. (3) of S.47, Civil P.C.,'where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court'. The position is summed up as follows in Rama Maruthi Changuli v. Mallappa Krishna Changuli AIR 1942 Bom. 309. "Under sub-s. (3) of S.47, Civil P.C.,'where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court'. There is a distinction between a dispute between two rival heirs of a deceased party in which the other party is not interested and a dispute between a person claiming to be the heir of one party and the other party who disputes the right of that person as such heir. It has been held by our Court in 35 Bom. LIZ 609 that sub-s. (3) of S.47 does not apply when the dispute is between rival representative of one party, the other party having disclaimed any interest in the question." 6. The lower court's order is, therefore, clearly in error and the appeal has to be allowed. We allow the appeal with costs.