In the case of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family, it is not absolutely necessary for the decree-holder executing the entire decree to state in so many words in the execution petition that the decree is being executed for the benefit of all of them.

B.P.SlNHA, J.

1. This is a judgment-debtors appeal from the decision and order, dated 18th January 1949 based by the Subordinate Judge of Patna overruling their objections to the execution of the decree, under s. 47, Civil P. C.

2. It appears that the respondents family, which, admittedly, continues to be a joint Hindu Mitakshara family, obtained a decree on the foot of a simple mortgage bond. The preliminary deoree was-made final on 24th August 1938. The deoree had been passed in favour of five persons, namely, (1) Nem Narain Singh, the karta of the family, (2) Harihar Singh, son of Nem Narains brother, Jangi, (3) Bang Bahadur alias Madni, (4) Eameshwar, both sons of Nem Narain Singh, and (5) Nageshwar alias Rajniti, eon of Harihar aforesaid. It appears that Rang Bahadur alias Medni aforesaid died sometime in 1939, leaving him surviving a widow and the other members aforesaid. By a petition, dated 16th September 1939, the Court was apprised of the faot that Medni, one of the decree holders, was dead. That was done on the 22nd of August, 1945. The present execution case was instituted on the 1st February 1947, by Nem Narain Singh for himself and as guardian of his grand-nephew, Nageshwar, as also by Harihar and Bameshwar. Nem Narain himself died in July 1947. Nageshwar attained majority during the pendency of the execution proceedings.

3. An objection under S. 47, Civil P. C. was filed by the judgment-debtors on the grounds (1) that Nem Narain Singh and Rang Bahadur alias Medni, two of the decree-holders died leaving behind them their respective widows, who became joint decree-holders along with the other members of the family, and that, in their absence, the decree could not be executed; (2) that, the preliminary decree having been amended, unless the final decree also was accordingly amended, the execution was not maintainable; and (3) that the valuation of the properties should be revised, as the last valuation was made as long back as 1940. These objections were overruled by the Court below. Hence this appeal.

4. Before us, only one point has been pressed in support of the appeal, namely, that, the widows of Nem Narain Singh and Bang Bahadur Singh alias Medni not having been made partits to theexecution proceedings, and the terms of R. 15 of o. 21 of the Code not having been complied with, the execution was not maintainable. So far as Nem Narain ia concerned, he died after the filing of the execution petition, and his widow could not have been made a party to the proceedings at the time the execution petition was filed. But the position is different so far as the widow of Bang Bahadur is concerned. Rang Bahadur died in 1989, during the pendency of the first execution case. In the present execution case, the decree-holders filed the execution petition on behalf of the surviving co-parceners under the impression that it was not necessary to implead the widow of the deceased Medni. On behalf of the judgment-debtors, it has been contended vehemently that, under the provisions of the Hindu Womens Bights to Property Act (xvIII [18] of 1937) as amended by Act XI [11] of 1938, the widow of the deceased decree-holder should have been impleaded as a party to the execution proceedings. It was also contended that the application, not being in terms of E. 15 of o. 21, was not maintainable.

5. The facts of this oase are not disputed on either side. It is an admitted fact that Medni died in 1939, leaving him surviving only his widow. It is also not disputed that the family still continues to be a joint Hindu Mitakshara family. Hence, in such a family, it is always open to the leading member as the karta of the family to represent the whole family in all transactions in Court or out of Court. But it was contended on behalf of the appellants that, though it was open to the mortgagees to sue through the karta of the joint family for the enforcement of the mortgage bond, as a matter of fact, all the male members of the family, that i