The assignee decree holder, in a suit for redemption has filed this revision challenging the order of the execution court, (Additional Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara), dismissing his execution petition holding that he is not competent to execute the decree.

2. The factual back ground giving rise to the present revision, can be summed up as hereunder:

The decree sought to be executed by the assignee decree holder is one passed in O.S.No.67/57 allowing redemption of a mortgage property from the 1st defendant one Ummini Nadar Kochappi Nadar. Suit was filed by two plaintiffs on behalf of a tharwad viz., Punnakulath Tharwad, to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of the year 1095 ME from the 1st defendant on behalf of the tharwad. Suit was decreed by judgment dated 17.3.1959. Execution of that decree was applied for filing a petition on 9.3.1961. That execution petition was dismissed on 1.8.1962 since the mortgagee had obtained grant of registry in respect of the decree scheduled property from the Special Tahsildar (Kandukrishi Lands). The decree holders challenged the dismissal of the petition filing an appeal, A.S.No.563/62. That appeal was dismissed. Decree holders filed a second appeal as S.A.No.846/63 before this court and that appeal was allowed on 4.7.1967 directing the execution court to execute the decree in accordance with its tenor. The mortgagee immediately thereupon filed a suit as O.S.No.945/67 before the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara, against the decree holders contending that he has acquired title to the property under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and sought for a declaration of his title over the property. In that suit, an interim injunction was obtained restraining the decree holders from executing the decree for redemption. That injunction application, it is stated, continued till 31.7.1971, the date on which that suit was dismissed. Pending the above suit, the mortgagee passed away and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional plaintiffs. They filed an appeal against the dismissal of that suit as A.S.No.182/71 and, it is stated, an order of injunction obtained in that decree restraining the decree holders from executing the decree allowing redemption of the mortgaged property continued in force till 7.2.1975, the date on which that appeal A.S.No.182/71 was dismissed by the Sub Court, Thiruvanathapuram. The decree holders thereafter filed the present execution petition, E.P.No.80/79 seeking redemption of the mortgaged property. In the execution proceedings, on the application moved by the legal representatives of the mortgagee, an Advocate Commissioner determined the value of improvements and filed a report. The report of the Commissioner was set aside by the execution court. That decision was challenged by the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagee filing a revision, C.R.P.No.2777/84 before this court. Pending that revision petition, the 1st decree holder passed away and his legal representatives were impleaded in the revision petition. That revision petition was dismissed on 14.6.1991. Pursuant to dismissal of that revision, the legal representatives of the 1st decree holder, who had been brought in substituting the decree holder in the revision, assigned their right , title and interest in the decree scheduled property in favour of a third party, the present revision petitioner under two registered assignment deeds. Meanwhile, the 2nd decree holder had also passed away. On the strength of the assignment deeds executed by the legal representatives of the 1st decree holder, the revision petitioner/assignee applied for impleading him as additional decree holder in the pending execution petition permitting him to execute the decree. Notice on that application, it is stated, was given to all parties, including the executants of the assignment deeds and also the judgment debtors. The execution court dismissed the application for impleadment by the assignee by order dated 23.11.1