debtor), he had moved application for his impleadment setting forth a case that his parents had transferred the decree schedule property in his favour and for an effective adjudication of the appeal, his presence as a party was necessary. That application was dismissed by the appellate court. After the death of his father, when he was brought in as one among his legal representatives, the learned counsel submits a case different from that was canvassed before the appellate court is presented by filing a claim petition contending that he has prescribed title over the property by adverse possession. It is further submitted that as the 7th judgment debtor had been brought in the execution proceedings as a legal representative of the deceased 1st judgment debtor, it was a case of substitution only, and he can represent whatever right, title and or interest, which was available of that judgment debtor and that alone, and not competent to set up any independent right to obstruct the execution of the decree. The learned counsel for the decree holder relied on Ajith Kumar M.R. and others v. Vasanthi Devi and Others (2008 (4) KHC 818) to contend that the
