A person in possession of the property in respect of which a decree has been passed, but who claims no title from the deceased judgment-debtor, must be treated as a legal representative at least for continuing the execution under section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS appeal from appellate order, is at the instance of unsuccessful judgment debtors, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 47 of 1963 dated 30th April, 1964, made by the learned District Judge, Bankura, setting aside thereby the judgment and order dated 16th September, 1963, made in J. Misc. Case No. 100 of 1962, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bankura.

( 2 ) ON or about 12th November, 1956, Title Suit No. 77 of 1956 for partition, was filed by the decree holder respondents herein against one Haliman Bibi, being defendant No. 4 amongst others and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein. In the said suit, the plaintiffs claimed their 6 annas 8 gandas share on partition by metes and bounds and for separate possession and the suit was valued at Rs. 4,000/ -. The suit was decreed in the preliminary form on compromise, on 27th May, 1959 and by the said decree, it was held that Defendant No. 4 Haliman Bibi would occupy a house during her life time as a licensee. Thereafter, on or about 16th August 1961, on the basis of a report of the Commissioner of Partition, a final decree was passed.

( 3 ) THE decree-holder respondents, thereafter, instituted Title Execution Case No. 4 of 1962 for having the said decree executed. As in the meantime, Haliman Bibi, the defendant No. 4 had died, her heirs being appellants herein were substituted. Those heirs filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending, inter alia, amongst other that the Title Execution Case in question was not maintainable against them. In support of such contentions, it was firstly submitted that as they were not in possession of the properties as the heirs of defendant No. 4, so the decree was not executable against them. It was secondly contended that Md. Sayed, one of the decree-holders had left for Pakistan in March, 1950 and before that he made an oral gift of his share in favour of his mother-in-law Haliman Bibi in 1950. Such gift was contended to be followed up with delivery of possession and it was also submitted that since then the said Haliman Bibi was in possession by constructing 2 huts. It was further contended that Haliman Bibi viz. , the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, was a bare license in the suit property and so her interest in the suit property came to an end on her death.

( 4 ) ON evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the story of oral gift and as such negatived the first contention on behalf of the appellants herein. But he upheld the second contention and held that Haliman Bibi had the interest of a bare licensee in the suit property, and as such her interest came to an end on her death and so her heirs could not be regarded as legal representatives and as such they could not be substituted in her place. In that view of the matter, it was observed that the connected execution case was not maintainable against the appellants herein and as such the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) AN appeal was taken and a cross-objection was preferred against the said determination. The story of oral gift was also disbelieved by the learned District Judge and that too on appropriate consideration of the relevant evidence as led. Thus, on the question of oral gift, the findings of the learned Courts below are same, similar and concurrent and as such no interference with such findings in this jurisdiction is required or called for or should be made ordinarily.

( 6 ) ON the other question regarding the cessation of the interest of Haliman on her death, the findings of the learned courts below are not concurrent. As mentioned hereinbefore, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the interest of Haliman as a bare licensee, in the suit property, came to an end on her death but such findings on the basis of the determinations in the case of (1) Baliram Hari v. Mukinda Kissen, A. I. R. 1951 Nagpur 145, and on const