The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of property in execution proceedings is invalid if conducted without impleading the legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor, as mandated by R.74(4) of the Co-operative Societies Rules.

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 a southern most portion of 80 cents obtained by him in partition deed Ext. Al. In Ext. Al partition deed 1 acre 62 cents are divided into equal halves and one part was alloted 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. B 2 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 R.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. 1790 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. 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 sale 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 delivery cannot be effected. The property which is sought to be delivered is the property which was given to Ouseph under Ext. Al partition 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 R.82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Under R.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 depos