( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against an order passed in a petition under Order XXI Rule 90 and Sec. 47 C. P. C. dismissing the application to set aside the sale held on January 23, 1983 in E. P. 35/71 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali. An extent of Ac. 5-00 of wet land was sold on January 23, 1983. The appellant filed E. A 14/86 to set aside the above sale. The facts not in dispute are that one d. Seetamma, Judgment-debtor No. 6 is the owner of the petition schedule property. She died in 1971. Before her death she bequeathed by a will dated October 14, 1969 this Ac. 5-00 of wet land to the appellant. This properly is also one ot the properties sought to be proceeded against. Consequent on the death of the deceased, an application E. A. 153/82 was filed under Sec. 50 C. P. C. to bring the appellant on record as a successor in-interest of the deceased judgment-debtor. The appellant was brought on record without any notice to her and the property was sold on January 23, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-per acre without any notice. Assailing the validity of the sale so held the appeal has been filed.

( 2 ) THE contention of Sri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant is that by operation of Order XXI Rule 22 read with Sec. 50 (1) c. P. C. , notice to the appellant is mandatory. No notice was issued and therefore the sale is void and the Court below erred in law in holding that the appellant s father was representing all the judgment-debtors and the representation by him is sufficient compliance with Order 21 Rule 22 and sec. 50 (3) C. P. C. This finding is in the teeth of Order XXI Rule 22 and it is contrary to Sec. 50 (1) C. P. C. find force in the contention.

( 3 ) SRI Raniana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the above contention. He argued that it is the case of the appellant that she was a student prosecuting her studies elsewhere and her father was representing her in the legal proceedings. Therefore, though the court has given a finding that no notice was given, in view of the fact that her father had represented in the execution proceedings, that is sufficient compliance. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Court below is valid in law.

( 4 ) SECTION 50 (1) of C. P. C. postulates that where a judgment-debtordies before the decree has been fully satisfied the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representatives of the deceased. Order XXI Rule 22 provides that where an application for execution is made : (A) more than two years after the date of the decree, or (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of Section 44 A, or (c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent, the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show-cause notice, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him. Order XXII rule 10 provides procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit. Rule 10 (1) reads thus : (1) In other cases of an assignment, creation of devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. (Sub-rule 2 is not necessary, Hence omitted ).

( 5 ) A reading of these provisions would clearly demonstrate that if an interest has been devolved by testamentary disposition upon third parties, then the proceedings in the suit may be continued with the leave of the Court, against a perses by or uport whom such interest has come or devolved. Obviously, for this purpose since it is a testamentary succession, an application has been filed under Sec. 50 (1) and under Rule 22 of Order xxi to proceed against the property whic