Judgment : First respondent in R.E.P.No.7 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Omalur is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Munsif, dated 14. 1999 recording the memo filed by the respondent-Dalmia Magnesite corporation in R.E.P.No.7 of 1996 holding that the petitioner herein alone is sufficient to execute the decree, has filed the present revision. According to him, the respondent herein filed R.E.P.No.7 of 1996 against the petitioner and his mother Perumayee to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Mettur. As per the decree the defendant should have to deliver the possession. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings his mother, the second respondent in E.P. passed away. The respondent herein filed a memo to the effect that no legal representatives be added as the petitioner herein can represent the deceased second respondent in the E.P. He filed a detailed objections objections opposing the memo stating that there are legal representatives to the deceased 2nd respondent in E.P. and all the legal representatives be brought on record after proper notice to them. It is further stated that without considering the said valid objection, the court below by the impugned order, recorded the memo, against which he has filed the present revision. 2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner cannot be said to been aggrieved person by virtue of the impugned order dated 14. 1999 passed on the memo filed in R.E.P.No.7 of 1996. Inasmuch as he is no way affected by virtue of the impugned order, the revision is not maintainable. It is stated that the suit property of an extent of 8.00 Acres in Survey No.125/1 in Vellakalpatty village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, was acquired by the Government from the father of the petitioner and one Chinna Gounder by G.O.Ms.No.3037, dated 8. 1958 for the purpose of dumping mining wastes by the respondent Corporation. Since the petitioner herein and his mother Perumayee trespassed into the suit property, the respondent herein was forced to file O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Mettur for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 13. 1989 and the respondent herein filed R.E.P.No.31 of 1991 for executing the abovesaid decree. Since the petitioner herein and his mother Perumayee trespassed into the suit property, the respondent herein was forced to file O.S.No.590 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Mettur for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 13. 1989 and the respondent herein filed R.E.P.No.31 of 1991 for executing the abovesaid decree. As per the decree, the respondent herein and his mother have to deliver possession of the suit property within two months and in default the respondent is at liberty to take delivery of possession through process of court. In the execution proceedings, the petitioner and his mother filed R.E.A.No.327 of 1993 for appointment of a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. Though the Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Court in R.E.A.No.327 of 1993, this Court in C.R.P.Nos.3276 of 3277 of 1993 set aside the order appointing the Commissioner holding that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the decree. Subsequent to the above order, the respondent herein came to know that the mother of the petitioner viz., Perumayee died on 26. 1998. Since the petitioner herein and his mother alone were admittedly in possession of the suit property and the possession has to be taken from them and since the petitioner is the son of the deceased. Perumayee, the respondent herein filed a memo dated 19. 1998 stating that the delivery has to be ordered in terms of decree from the petitioner herein and that since the petitioner herein who is the son of the deceased Perumayee is already on record, no other legal representatives of the deceased have to be brought on record and no steps need to be taken by the decree-holder. The Executing Court after enquiry, recorded the memo and ordered to proceed further with the execution proceedings. It is stated that the only intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings as long as possible. 3. In the light of the above factual position, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent. 4. The only point for consideration is whether after the death of Perumayee, 2nd respondent in R.E.P.No.7 of 1996, the respondent herein decree-holder has to take steps to bring on record all the legal representatives by issuing notice to theme 5. 4. The only point for consideration is whether after the death of Perumayee, 2nd respondent in R.E.P.No.7 of 1996, the respondent herein decree-holder has to take steps to bring on record all the legal representatives by issuing notice to theme 5. There is no dispute that the suit property of an extent of 8.00 acres in Survey No.125/1 in Vellakalpatty village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District was acquired by the Government from the father of the petitioner herein and one Chinna Gounder by applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of dumping mining wastes by the respondent-Corporation. It is the definite case of the respondent that after completion of the acquisition proceedings and after taking possession, the petitioner and his mother namely Perumayee trespassed into the suit property which necessitated them to file the suit in O.S.No.590 of 1983 before the District Munsifs Court, Mettur for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. It is also not disputed that the said suit was decreed even on 13. 1989 and pursuant to the said decree, the respondent herein filed R.E.P.No.31 of 1991 for executing the same. It is also relevant to note that in the said execution petition, the petitioner and his mother filed R.E.A.No.327 of 1993 for appointment of a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice that in the affidavit filed in support of the said R.E.A.No.327 of 1993, they had specifically stated that they were in physical possession of the property. Though subsequently this court had set aside the order of the court below appointing a Commissioner, the fact remains that it is the definite case of the petitioner and his mother Perumayee that they alone were in physical possession of the suit property Pending execution proceedings the 2nd judgment-debtor namely Perumayee died on 26. 1998. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein and his mother Perumayee alone were in possession of the suit property and as per the decree in P.S.590/1983, possession has to be taken from them. After the death of the other judgment-debtor the respondent herein filed a memo dated 19. 1998. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein and his mother Perumayee alone were in possession of the suit property and as per the decree in P.S.590/1983, possession has to be taken from them. After the death of the other judgment-debtor the respondent herein filed a memo dated 19. 1998 stating that since the petitioner is the son of the other debtor and he is already on record, no other legal representatives of the deceased need be brought on record and requested the Executing Court to record the memo. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that apart from the petitioner there are four sisters to him, that they are also entitled their respective share in the property of the deceased Perumayee and that they are entitled notice before passing any order in the Execution Petition By pointing out the same and by referring to Sec.50(1), C.P.C., as well as O.21, Rule 22, C.P.C., he would contend that notice to the legal representatives is a mandatory and failure to comply with the same will vitiate the entire proceedings. In support of his above contention, he very much relied on a decision of Balasubramanyam, J., in the case of Konammal and others v. K.Balasubramaniam and others Konammal and others v. K.Balasubramaniam and others Konammal and others v. K.Balasubramaniam and others 1983 T.L.N.J. 84.After referring Sec.50, C.P.C. and O.21, Rule 22, C.P.C., the learned Judge has held that non-service of notice to some of the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant wholly vitiates the court auction sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the interest of the petitioner to the suit is different, hence he cannot take the interest of other persons, namely, his sisters and accordingly, the court below ought to have issued notice to all the daughters of the deceased Perumayee before proceeding further in the execution petition. In support of his above contention, he very much relied on a decision in the case of Pyli v. Varhese Pyli v. Varhese Pyli v. Varhese A.I.R. 1956 Tra. and Co. 147, Daya Ram and Smt.Shanti Devi (Minor) v. Khandubala Dasi Smt.Shanti Devi (Minor) v. Khandubala Dasi Smt.Shanti Devi (Minor) v. Khandubala Dasi A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 336 ?F.B.?. In the light of the submissions made, I have carefully perused the Dictum made in these decisions. and Co. 147, Daya Ram and Smt.Shanti Devi (Minor) v. Khandubala Dasi Smt.Shanti Devi (Minor) v. Khandubala Dasi Smt.Shanti Devi (Minor) v. Khandubala Dasi A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 336 ?F.B.?. In the light of the submissions made, I have carefully perused the Dictum made in these decisions. I have already stated that in our case, the respondent herein after contest, secured a decree for possession against the petitioner herein and his mother, since they trespassed into the suit property. Inspite of the decree, the Judgment-debtors failed to surrender possession; hence the decree-holder/respondent herein was constrained to file execution petition and during the pendency of the said proceeding, one of the judgment-debtors, namely, Perumayee died. As already stated by me, in the petition for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property filed by the petitioner herein and his mother Perumayee, both of them have specifically asserted that they were in physical possession of the suit property. In the light of their own version and inasmuch as they alone trespassed into the suit property of the respondent after the death of one of the trespassers namely Perumayee the respondent herein is justified in filing a memo to record the presence of the other trespasser namely the son of the deceased and proceed with the execution proceedings. In the light of the peculiar factual position, I am of the view that all the decisions referred to above are not helpful to the petitioners case. 6. Apart from the said position, the learned counsel for the respondent by drawing my attention to O.22, Rule 12, would contend that in the execution proceedings, it is unnecessary to bring the legal representatives on record and even if for some reasons they were not brought on record it would not affect their case. He very much relied on Division Bench decision of this Court in Pethaperumal v. Chidambaram A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 760. The relevant conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench is extracted hereunder: “10. The next question is whether it makes any difference in legal effect if possession is taken through court. He very much relied on Division Bench decision of this Court in Pethaperumal v. Chidambaram A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 760. The relevant conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench is extracted hereunder: “10. The next question is whether it makes any difference in legal effect if possession is taken through court. The code contemplates no notice to the judgment-debtor at that stage of any objection being raised by him to the delivery of possession under Rule 95, or Rule 96 and as the full title to the property has passed from the judgment-debtor to the auction purchaser, he has no interest in the property to protect. This furnishes the point of distinction between the case dealt with in A.I.R. 1936 Mad. 205(A)vide at page 214, where emphasis is laid on the continuance of the title in the property in the judgment-debtor. It therefore follows that there is here no question of the proceedings under O.21, Rule 95 or 96 being rendered” void “ at this stage by the death of the judgment-debtor without the legal representatives being impleaded.” 7. In Seethanna v. Lakshmi Devi A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 520, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a similar circumstance, after referring to O.22, Rule 12 and O.21, Rule 96, C.P.C. have held that there is no legal obligation on the part of a decree-holder to implead the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor at the stage of taking delivery of possession of property and the proceedings taken under O.21, Rule 96, without impleading them cannot be held to be void while arising such conclusion their Lordships have followed the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pethaperumal v. Chidambaram A.I.R. 1954 Mad. 760. The said decisions support the stand of the respondent. Inasmuch as the decree is only against the petitioner and her mother and the suit having been filed on the ground that they alone trespassed into the suit property and also in view of their assertion in the form of an affidavit that they alone were in physical possession of the suit property after the death of his mother Perumayee, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to issue notice to the other legal representatives of the said Perumayee. In other words, in the light of the factual position and in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no obligation on the part of the respondent-decree-holder to issue notice to the other legal heirs, namely, the sisters of the petitioner herein. The court below is right in recording the memo filed by the respondent herein, and I do not find any error or infirmity in the order impugned. 8. Net result, the civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently C.M.P.No.22504 of 99 is also dismissed.