JUDGMENT 1. The sole appellant died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 2. The appellant filed O.S.No.257 of 1973 in the Court of District Munsif, Amadalavalasa, against one Sri Krishnamacharyulu, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed. After the decree became final, he filed E.P.No.9 of 1987 and brought an item of immovable property, admeasuring Ac.0.14 cents in Survey No.105/A, to sale. The judgment debtor died. His legal representatives i.e., his wife, by name Venkata Ratnam, who is since dead, his son Raghavacharyulu, second respondent and the son of the deceased son, by name Shanmukha Rao, 1st respondent were brought on record. 3. The legal representatives of Krishnamacharyulu filed O.S.No.19 of 1990 in the Court of District Munsif, Amudalavalasa, for a declaration that they are the owners of the property, which was sought to be brought under sale, for execution of the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1973 and made a reference to the relevant proceedings. It was pleaded that the suit schedule property had accrued to Venkata Ratnam, the 3rd plaintiff and her mother, by name Ramanujamma under the document, dated 09.08.1958, and that the same could not have been proceeded against, for execution of a decree against Krishnamacharyulu. 4. The suit was resisted by the appellant, raising the grounds of maintainability. It was urged that in view of Section 47 and Rule 90 of Order XXI C.P.C., a separate suit is not maintainable. The claim of the respondents was also denied and it was pleaded that the property was available for execution of the decree passed against Krishnamacharyulu. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 12.04.1994. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.73 of 1994 in the Court of Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Srikakulam. The appeal was dismissed on 17.03.1997. Hence, this Second Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that O.S.No.19 of 1990 was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the respondents herein were made parties to E.P.No.9 of 1987 and that all the questions relating to execution were required to be decided in the same proceedings and not by a separate suit. It is also contended that there is sufficient evidence to disclose that late Krishnamacharyulu, the judgment debtor, had ample interest in the suit schedule property and that the filing of the subsequent suit was only to defeat the benefit of the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1993. It is also contended that there is sufficient evidence to disclose that late Krishnamacharyulu, the judgment debtor, had ample interest in the suit schedule property and that the filing of the subsequent suit was only to defeat the benefit of the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1993. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is always open to the legal representatives of a judgment debtor to file a separate suit to substantiate their claim vis--vis the property, that is sought to be proceeded against in execution proceedings. He places reliance upon a judgment of a Full Bench of Madras High Court in Hamidgani vs. Ammasahib1. He further contends that from Ex.A.1, dated 09.08.1958, it is amply clear that no interest was created in favour of Krishnamacharyulu, the judgment debtor in O.S.No.257 of 1973. 8. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the court fee paid is correct? 4. Whether the plaint schedule is correct? 9. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. The appellant deposed as D.W.1 and filed Exs.B.1 to B.4. The trial Court had undertaken extensive discussion on the maintainability of the suit, particularly with reference to Section 47 and Rule 90 of Order XXI C.P.C. It overruled the objection as to the maintainability of the suit and found that the judgment debtor in O.S.No.257 of 1973 did not have any title vis--vis the suit schedule property. These findings were upheld by the lower appellate Court. 10. It is no doubt true that all the questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree must be determined by the Court executing the decree and not in a separate suit, as is evident from Section 47 of C.P.C. In addition to this, Rules 58 and 90 of Order XXI C.P.C. prohibit the filing of separate suits, for determination of the claims made by the parties to a decree or even third parties. Section 47 of C.P.C was amended from time to time, to make it comprehensive. 11. Section 47 of C.P.C was amended from time to time, to make it comprehensive. 11. The respondents herein were brought on record in E.P.No.9 of 1987, which was filed for execution of the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1973. The sole judgment debtor was Mr. Krishnamacharyulu. Whatever be the prohibition that operates by virtue of Section 47 of C.P.C. against the parties to a decree or even third parties, in the context of maintaining a separate suit, the legal representatives of a judgment debtor stand on a somewhat different footing. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the judgment, referred to above, held that it is always open to the legal representatives of a judgment debtor to maintain a separate suit. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "When a person comes into Court in execution proceedings as the legal representative of a deceased party he cannot question the decree which has been passed. If the decree concerns property in which he claims an interest, the decree will not be binding upon him unless he was a party to the suit. If he was not a party to the suit or, as in this case, he had been dismissed from the suit, his rights will be entirely unaffected and he will be in a position to enforce them in a suit instituted by him for that purpose." Therefore, it cannot be said that O.S.No.19 of 1990 filed by the respondents herein is not maintainable. 12. Now, it remains to be seen as to whether the suit schedule property was not available to be proceeded against, for execution of the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1983. Ex.A.1 is the document, dated 09.08.1958, through which the suit schedule property in O.S.No.99 of 1990 had accrued to Venkata Ratnam, who is the 3rd plaintiff in the present suit and the wife of Krishnama Charyulu, and her mother Ramanujamma. The only relation of Krishnama Charyulu to that property is that he is the husband of one of the co-owners. The question of his getting any right during the lifetime of his wife does not arise. Incidentally, he pre- deceased his wife, the 3rd plaintiff. Therefore, it was not open to the appellant to proceed against the present suit schedule property, to realize the amount in the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1973. The question of his getting any right during the lifetime of his wife does not arise. Incidentally, he pre- deceased his wife, the 3rd plaintiff. Therefore, it was not open to the appellant to proceed against the present suit schedule property, to realize the amount in the decree in O.S.No.257 of 1973. The Courts below have appreciated the matter from the proper perspective and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. 13. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.