JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein, who claims under an agreement for sale dated 20.5.2009 entered into by the decree holder in O.S.No.84 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sulthanbatheri and other co-owners, filed an application on the execution side seeking impleadment as a party to E.P.No.7 of 2006 in O.S.No.84 of 1972 and to permit him to execute the decree as if it is an application made by the decree holder himself. The first respondent/decree holder resisted the application contending interalia that he has transferred the decree in favour of Sri.Abubacker Changat and Sri.Sudheep.P. The execution court considered the rival contentions and after taking note of the fact that Sri.Abubacker Changat and Sri.Sudheep.P have been substituted as petitioners in E.P.No.7 of 2006, consequent on the transfer of the decree in their favour by the first respondent/decree holder as per a deed dated 17.5.2013, held that the remedy of the petitioner is to either sue for specific performance of the agreement or for return of the advance and that he cannot get himself impleaded in the execution petition and get the decree executed by substituting him as the decree holder. E.A