Will being not probated petition filed dismissed.

Petitioners 3 and 4 in E.A. No.614 of 1990 in E.P. No.94 of 1987 in O.S. No.452 of 1974, on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Tuticorin, are the revision petitioners herein.

2. Respondent herein filed the suit against one Ramalakshmi ammal, foreviction .She claimed rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. Her right to purchase the land under the said Act was upheld by this Court, and in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the decision of this Court was confirmed.

3. Pending proceedings, Ramalakshmiammal died and Sivasubramania Pillai and Mahilapranam were brought on record as her legal representatives. They are the sons of Ramalakshmiammal. Mahilapranam is the first petitioner in this revision. When the court declared that the defendant is entitled to purchase the land, execution petition was filed by the first petitioner herein and SivasubramaniaPillai as E.P.No.94 of 1987 for execution of a sale deed in their favour by the respondent. Pending execution proceedings, Sivasubramania Pillai died, leaving behind him a will dated 12. 1989, by which he bequeathed all his right, title and interest in the property in favour of the first petitioner herein and his brother Ramalingam. As legal representatives, they filed E.A. No.614 of 1990 for recording the first petitioner as the legal representatives of the deceased Sivasubramania Pillai and also to bring on record the second petitioner in the revision as fourth petitioner in the execution petition, namely, E.P. No.94 of 1987.

4. When the said application was filed, the respondent herein filed objection stating that since the claim is based on a will executed at Madras without obtaining a Probate or Letters of Administration, they cannot be brought on record.

5. The will was proved by adducing evidence by examining the attestors. But the lower court dismissed the said application on the ground that under Secs.213 and 214 of the Indian Succession Act, the claim of the petitioners cannot be recognised without obtaining a probate or letters of administration. It is against that order, the present revision is filed.

6. The court below is correct if it decides the matter only under Secs.213 and 214 of the Indian Succession Act. But I feel that there is a difference in this case and I deal with the same herein.

7. I have already said that the decree was granted in favour of Ramalakshmiammal and from the cause-title of the order of the court below, we find that Ramalakshmiammal died during its execution. It is not disputed that Sivasubramania Pillai and Mahilapranam were impleaded as her legal representatives. The impleading will have an impact on the applicability of Secs.213 and 214 of the Indian Succession Act.

8. What is the relationship of Sivasubramania Pillai and Mahilapranam when they were impleaded as legal representatives of the original decree-holder Ramalakshmiammal. Eventhough the decree was in favour of only one individual, when that decree-holder died, the right under the decree devolved on two persons. According to me, the legal representatives became joint decree-holders under law.

9. In Khadim Husain v. Abdul Rahman, A.I.R. 1956 All. 575, a similar question came for consideration. In paragraph 3 of the judgment, the said question was considered. In that case, it was argued that on the basis of the provisions of 0.21, Rule 15, C.P.C., the principles of joint decree-holder executing a decree can be made applicable only if the decree itself is passed in favour of more than one person and the same is not applicable where the legal representatives of a decree-holder are impleaded. It was contended thus:

“... It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that O.21, Rule 15 applies only to decree-holders in whose favour a decree had been passed and would not cover legal representatives of a deceased decree-holder.”

10. On the above contention, it was decided as follows:

“O.21, Rule 16, C.P.C., however, says that i