Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Revision petitioner is the additional sixth judgment debtor in E.P. No. 345 of 1991. The first judgment debtor availed a loan from the Regional Service Co-operative Bank, Kaduthuruthy. Her father late Devasia offered 40 cents of property belonging to him as security by executing Security Bond, Ext. A6, dated 7-12-1977. The 40 cents offered as security by Ext. A6 is described as the southern most portion of 80 cents obtained by him in partition deed Ext. Al. In Ext. Al partition deed 1 acre 62 cents was divided into equal halves and one part was allotted to Ouseph elder brother of Devasia in Schedule 'C' and the remaining part was allotted to Devasia in Schedule U. Out of the D schedule property in the partition deed 40 cents were given as security by Ext. A6. Since the loan was not repaid. Bank had obtained an award against the first judgment debtor and the guaranter Devasia as second judgment debtor. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vaikom, sold the property secured in public auction. Respondent herein purchased the property in the auction held on 24.4.1989. Second judgment debtor in the award whose property was sold died on 23.11.1987. His legal representatives were not impleaded in the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar. Therefore, it is contended by the revision petitioner that the legal representatives of the deceased second judgment debtor are not bound by the sale. The Assistant Registrar executed Ext. B2 sale deed of the year 1990 in favour of the auction purchaser in which it is indicated that the auction purchaser is put in possession. In accordance with Rule 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules E.P. No. 345 of 1991 was filed before the Munsiff s Court, Vaikom for execution. The court below issued notice to the legal representatives of the petitioner for delivery and sixth judgment debtor, one of the sons of Devasia, entered appearance and filed E.A. No. 170 of 1992 praying for declaration that the property is not liable to be delivered and execution petition is liable to be dismissed. Two grounds are stated by him. First ground is that sale was conducted after the death of the second judgment debtor Devasia without impleading his legal representatives. Since the owner of the property Devasia was no more on the date of sale, the sale is null and void. Two grounds are stated by him. First ground is that sale was conducted after the death of the second judgment debtor Devasia without impleading his legal representatives. Since the owner of the property Devasia was no more on the date of sale, the sale is null and void. The second ground is that the property sought to be delivered over actually is the C Schedule property belonging to the brother of Devasia the other side in Ext. Al partition deed. By Ext. A2 sole deed in the year 1972 and Ext. A3 sale deed in the year 1974 those properties were purchased by the revision petitioner and it is not the property of Devasia. It is the contention that since survey numbers were the same there were some confusion. The property belonging to Devasia was not sold in execution. Therefore, the deli very cannot be effected. The property which is sought to be delivered is the property which was given to Ouseph under Ext. Al petition deed and it was purchased by the revision petitioner subsequently much before the sale. 2. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that no objection was raised by the additional sixth judgment debtor before the Assistant Registrar. It is not proved that the property sold was not the property given as security by the second judgment debtor. It was also stated that sale was conducted with notice to the first judgment debtor and after paper publication. There is no document to show that property sought to be delivered over is not the property of the second judgment debtor. These findings are attacked by the revision petitioner. 3. It is contended by the respondent that if the sale is invalid the revision petitioner has to approach the Assistant Registrar under Rule 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Under Rule 82 where immovable property has been sold by the sale officer and if anybody wants to set aside the sale can apply to the Registrar after depositing 5 % of the purchase money and after complying with the conditions prescribed in Rule 82. Hence no such application was filed. It was also pointed out that there is no provision for impleading the legal representatives by the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar conducted the sale. The Court only executed the delivery in accordance with Rule 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Hence no such application was filed. It was also pointed out that there is no provision for impleading the legal representatives by the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar conducted the sale. The Court only executed the delivery in accordance with Rule 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The application for delivery of possession was done within the time prescribed under Rule 84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. It was further contended that no material was produced by the revision petitioner before the execution court that property given as security and property sought to be delivered are different. In any event, such objection ought to have been filed before the Assistant Registrar, and what is now sought to be delivered is the property covered by the sale deed. Before the execution court it cannot be contended that the property covered in the sale deed is not the property covered under the security deed. Such objection ought to have been filed in time before the Assistant Registrar and that was not done. Therefore, none of such contentions can be raised. It is also submitted that the sale was conducted after public notice and during sale one of the legal representatives came and objected and that objection was overruled. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the sale was conducted without the knowledge of the legal representatives. Therefore, sale conducted was valid. It is not questioned before the Registrar as provided under Rule 82. Since the sale is valid, the property which is sought to be delivered as per the sale deed has to be delivered and there is no infirmity in the order. 4. It is also contended that the Assistant Registrar has no power to implead the legal representatives at that time. In the decision in Bhaskaran Nair v. Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum (1976 KLT 18) it was held that an arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act has no power to implead. The above decision was overruled in 1996 by a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Thankam Ramakrishna Pillai v. Arbitrator (1996 (1) KLT 225 =1996 (1) KLJ 289). It is contended that until the decision in 1996 (1) KLT225 =1996 (1) KLJ 289 the Registrar has no power to implead the legal representatives and therefore, they were not impleaded. The above decision was overruled in 1996 by a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Thankam Ramakrishna Pillai v. Arbitrator (1996 (1) KLT 225 =1996 (1) KLJ 289). It is contended that until the decision in 1996 (1) KLT225 =1996 (1) KLJ 289 the Registrar has no power to implead the legal representatives and therefore, they were not impleaded. But in view of the public notice and paper publication if there were any objection they could have raised it before the Assistant Registrar. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that only when the delivery application was made execution proceedings were progressed and orders were passed for delivery of the property he came to know about the sale etc. 5. The decision reported in 1976 KLT 18 deals with impleading of parties by the Arbitrator appointed under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. Subsequent Bench decision clarifies the law as originally stood. In any event, the powers of impleadment by the arbitrator is not at all the matter to be decided here. Here there is no arbitrator. The property was sold under Chapter XI of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Chapter XI Rule 74 deals with procedure for execution of decision or award. Rule 74(4) reads as follows: "Where a defaulter dies before the decree has been fully satisfied an application under sub-rule (1) may be made against the legal representatives of the deceased and thereupon all the provisions of this Rule shall apply, as if such legal representatives were the defaulters." Since rule 74(4) expressly gives power to file application against the legal representatives of the defaulters during execution of the award or order, the contention that during the relevant time the authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act has no power to implead is not correct. While executing the decree if the defaulter dies legal representatives should be impleaded or fresh application should be filed against them, in view of Rule 74(4) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The Assistant Registrar has got power to implead the legal representatives in view of Rule 74(4) and his power is different from the power of the arbitrator to implead other parties. In this case admittedly the second judgment debtor who was the guarantor and whose property was sold in execution was no more at the time when the decree was executed by sale. 6. In this case admittedly the second judgment debtor who was the guarantor and whose property was sold in execution was no more at the time when the decree was executed by sale. 6. It is the contention of the respondent that if such a sale is invalid because of the death of the second judgment debtor the legal representatives ought to have applied under Rule 82 to set aside the same. They cannot approach the execution court for cancellation of the sale deed already executed. It is true that application to set aside the sale can be made by the property owners in accordance with Rule 82. But here the second judgment debtor against whom decree was executed was no more on the date of sale. 7. In the decision in Cheria Chacko v. Kumaran Kesavan (1962 KLT. 848) a Division Bench of this Court held that a sale of the interest of a judgment debtor in the property is a nullity, if the legal representatives are not on record at the time of sale. It is true that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as such is not applicable for execution of awards when Assistant Registrars are executing the orders. They are only executing the orders as per the provisions of Chapter XI of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Even under Chapter XI Rule 74(4) if a defaulter dies before the decree has been fully satisfied an application under sub-rule (1) can be made against the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the property sold on 24.4.1989 is the property of the deceased second judgment debtor who died on 23.11.1987. His legal representatives were not made parties. If the second judgment debtor whose property sought to be delivered died on 23.11;1987 application should have been filed against the legal representatives of the second judgment debtor under Rule 74(1) in view of the provisions of Rule 74(4). Here admittedly no application was filed against the legal representatives under Rule 74(1) read with Rule 74(4) for execution of the decree. Therefore, decree against the guaranter/second judgment debtor was executed when he was no more and without making his legal representatives as parties. Therefore, sale of the property is null and void and it cannot be executed in a court of law and no delivery of possession can be given under Rule 84. Therefore, decree against the guaranter/second judgment debtor was executed when he was no more and without making his legal representatives as parties. Therefore, sale of the property is null and void and it cannot be executed in a court of law and no delivery of possession can be given under Rule 84. It is clear that when an application is filed under Rule 74(1) of Chapter XI of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules against a judgment debtor and that judgment debtor dies, the application has to be filed against, his legal representatives under Rule 74(4). If such an application is not filed under Rule 74(4), application filed under Rule 74(1) against the original judgment debtor who died will abate and proceedings cannot be continued. Since the second judgment debtor who was the guaranter died and legal representatives of the second judgment debtor who owned the property were not made parties, the sale of the property is a nullity. Sale of the interest of the second judgment debtor in the property is a nullity if on the date of the sale he is no more and no execution petition is filed against the legal representatives. 8. Since the sale is invalid, I allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order. It is for the Assistant Registrar to take fresh proceedings of execution. If the execution proceedings are to be taken against the second judgment debtors property he has to take proceedings against the legal representatives as provided under Rule 74 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.