Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.531 of 2005 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam but, not a party to E.P.No.220 of 2008. First respondent filed that suit for a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of plaint schedule property, seeking relief against all the defendants including petitioner. In the suit, petitioner and third defendant raised a contention that they are suffering from schizophrenia, the agreement sought to be enforced against them is null and void and hence no decree could be passed against petitioner and the third defendant. Trial court answered that question in favour of petitioner and third defendant and refusing to grant decree for specific performance, allowed the first respondent to recover the advance money with interest from defendants 1 and 4. That decree became final. In execution of that decree, first respondent brought the share of defendants 1 and 4 in the suit property for sale. At that time petitioner filed E.A.No.500 of 2011 seeking her impleadment. That application was dismissed by the executing court which is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel contends that since what is sought to be sold in execution is the undivided property of a marumakkathayi tarwad it is not liable to attachment and sale until the joint property is divided. It is
