1. Plaintiff 1 is the widow of one Suryanarayana and plaintiff 2 who is now dead was his daughter by a predeceased wife and plaintiff 3 is his daughter by plaintiff 1. The suit was for partition and the rights of the plaintiff were based on a will left by Saryanarayana. There was a joint decree for one fourth share of the family property in favour of the plaintiffs and the petition is put in by plaintiffs 1 and 3 for execution of the decree.
2. That petition has been dismissed by the District Judge, who seems to have allowed his mind to be diverted by a question as to who were the heirs of plaintiff 2 and other similar questions, though they do not seem to have been distinctly raised before him. Under R. 15, O. 21, the surviving decree-holders are entitled to execute the decree for their own benefit and for the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased joint decree-holder, that is, plaintiff 2 in this case. The proper course would be to allow plaintiffs 1 and 3 to execute the decree under R. 15, O. 21, and then if defendant 2 who claims to be the heir of plaintiff 2 brings himself on the record in these proceedings and raises the question as to his heirship, the Court will proceed to inquire into the matter and dispose of it according to law. We set aside the order of the District Judge and remand the appeal to him for disposal according to law in the light of the above observations. Costs will abide the result.
S.N/R.K
3. Suit remanded.