( 1 ) FIRST respondent and Nulu srirama Murthy, husband of the deceased second respondent, were having 50% share in the rice mill being run in the name and style of M/s. Sri Padmavathi Rice and Flour mill. First respondent agreed to purchase 50% share of Nulu Srirama Murthy under an agreement of sale dated 1-1-1984 for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- and paid Rs. 58,900/-to Nulu Srirama Murthy towards sale consideration. Subsequently, Nulu Srirama murthy died on 13-3-1985. So, first respondent served a notice on the deceased second respondent, the widow of Nulu srirama Murthy on 1-5-1985 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale in his favour by her husband or to refund the amount paid by him to her husband with interest at 24% per annum. As second respondent did not respond, he filed O. S. No. 34 of 1985 seeking specific performance of the agreement in his favour, making the 4th respondent, the foster daughter of Nulu Srirama Murthy and deceased second respondent, also a party to the suit. 4th respondent chose to remain ex parte by filing a memo that she has no interest in the property of Nulu Srirama murthy or the litigation. The trial Court dismissed the suit after trial. So first respondent preferred A. S. No. 3262 of 1992 to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents 1 and 2 entered into a compromise vide C. M. P. No. 13170 of 1999 where under first respondent agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- to the second respondent, besides the amount already received by her husband, and she agreed to transfer her share in M/s. Sri padmavathi Rice and Flour Mill to the first respondent. Accordingly, the compromise was recorded and a compromise decree was passed. As the second respondent, having received the amount under the compromise did not execute the sale deed in terms of the compromise decree, first respondent filed E. P. No. 14 of 2001 for a direction to the second respondent to execute a sale deed and register it in his favour, making the foster daughter of the deceased second respondent and Nulu srirama Murthy as a party thereto i. e. as third respondent. During the pendency of the said E. P. , as the second respondent died, first respondent filed a memo informing the Court that inasmuch as the foster daughter of the deceased second respondent and her husband is already on record as third respondent, she may be recognized as the legal heir to the estate of the deceased second respondent. Thereafter, revision petitioner who was arrayed as the fourth respondent in the E. P. , as per the orders in e. A. No. 178 of 2001 dated 8-8-2005, filed a memo that inasmuch as the second respondent inherited the rights in the suit property from her husband Nulu srinivasarao, Nulu Nagarathnam, maddula Ammaji and Nulu Namassivaya who are the heirs of her husband would become her legal heirs on her death as per section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act and since first respondent failed to implead them within the period of limitation the e. P. may be dismissed as abated, for which the first respondent filed a counter memo that inasmuch as the foster daughter of the deceased second respondent is already on record as third respondent and since fourth respondent is also representing the estate of the deceased second respondent, the E. P. cannot be dismissed as respondents 3 and 4 sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased second respondent. The executing Court by the order under revision upheld the contention of the first respondent and rejected the contention of the revision petitioner. Hence this revision. ( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as the second respondent inherited the share from her husband and since the second respondent died issueless, the property inherited by her from her husband devolves on the heirs of the husband mentioned in the memo field by the revision petitioner, by virtue of Section 15 (2)of the Hindu Succession Act, and since those persons are not added as parties to the E. P. , the executing Court was in error in not dismissing the E. P. as abated. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that inasmuch as the foster daughter of the second respondent is already on record, she sufficiently represents the estate of the deceased and so the order under revision needs no interference by placing strong reliance on S. Krishna murthy v. N. Aswathaiah, AIR 2006 Karn. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that inasmuch as the foster daughter of the second respondent is already on record, she sufficiently represents the estate of the deceased and so the order under revision needs no interference by placing strong reliance on S. Krishna murthy v. N. Aswathaiah, AIR 2006 Karn. 44. ( 3 ) SINCE the facts in S. Krishna murthy's case (supra), are entirely different from the facts of this case, the said decision has no application to the facts of this case. ( 4 ) A foster daughter is not and cannot be an heir to the estate of a deceased. Merely because the third respondent, who did not claim any interest in the property of nulu Srirama Murthy or in the lis, even in the suit, is made a party to the E. P. , she cannot represent the estate of the second respondent because she cannot even be said to be an intermeddler of the property of the deceased second respondent, for her to be construed as a legal representative' within the meaning of Section 2 (11) CPC. Since fourth respondent claims to be in possession of the property covered by the suit it can be treated as an 'intermeddler' and hence can represent the estate of the deceased second respondent. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner inasmuch as the second respondent died issueless, her estate would devolve on the heirs of her husband as per Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession act, whose names are mentioned in the memo filed by the fourth respondent in the e. P. ( 5 ) SINCE the provisions of Order 22 cpc do not apply to execution proceedings, merely because the first respondent did not bring on record all the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent within 90 days, the E. P. does not abate. ( 6 ) FOR proper adjudication of the E. P. , it would be appropriate if persons mentioned in the memo filed by the revision petitioner are also brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent. ( 6 ) FOR proper adjudication of the E. P. , it would be appropriate if persons mentioned in the memo filed by the revision petitioner are also brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent. It is for the first respondent to decide whether to file a petition to bring on record the persons named in the memo filed by the revision petitioner as legal representative of the deceased or to proceed with the E. P. against the revision petitioner only, on the ground that it is an intermeddler and hence would be legal representative within the meaning of Section 2 (11) CPC. ( 7 ) IN view thereof, the order under revision is set aside and the case is remitted to the executing Court, granting liberty to the first respondent to file a petition to bring on record the persons named in the memo filed by the revision petitioner as legal representatives of the deceased second respondent. No order as to costs. .