P. Subramonian Poti, J.

1. This Second appeal arises from proceedings in execution. The first appellant is the original decree holder and the second appellant claims to have obtained half of the rights under the decree by an assignment. The decree is one for recovery of property and also for recovery of mesne profits and costs. Recovery was prayed for against the illom represented by defendants, the first defendant being the karanavan and the second defendant the senior anadiravan. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, and this was confirmed by the appellate court. But in the second appeal the plaintiff was granted a decree holding that the plaint property belonged to the plaintiff and his mother, the 11th defendant in the suit, and the plaintiff was allowed to recover the property. Decree regarding mesne profits was also granite against the illom of first defendant. A further decree personally against the first defendant for recovery of mesne profits was also granted. During the pendency of the appeal before this court, S. A. 448 of 1951, the second defendant died and it appears that this was not noticed. In fact, the respondents in that appeal were only defendants 1 a