JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected execution first appeals by the decree-holder against two orders of the Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, upholding the objection of Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent, that she has become the absolute owner of the attached properties and that these properties cannot be proceeded against in execution without impleading her. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the orders are erroneous.
(2.) THE decree-holder obtained a decree against Samrath Gopinath on 24-6-39 and ever since he has been trying to realise the decretal amount. First the decree was executed under the Bachat Rules. In 1945 Samrath Gopinath died leaving a son Samrath Pran Nath. In 1917 Samrath Pran Nath died leaving a widow Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent and a minor son Samrath Anand Nath. Samrath Anand Nath died in 1947 and Smt. Lilawati Devi, respondent, is his legal representative. Samrath Gopinath was a Jagirdar. His Thikana was known as 'samrath Gopinath Thikana'. On the death of Pran Nath, who left a minor son Anand Nath, the Thikana was taken over by the Court of Wards. When the estate was taken over a notification was made under sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Court of Wards Act, 1951. Under sec. 16 the whole estate of the ward including all his movable and immovable properties will be deemed to be under the superintendence of Court of Wards from the date of assumption of superintendence. On the death of Anand Nath the estate was not released from the superintendence of Court of Wards. This Act is authorised by sec 46 of the Rajasthan Court of Wards Act 1951. From the date the estate was taken over under the superintendence of the Court of Wards the Collector in charge of the estate represents the ward in all legal proceedings. On the death of the ward in the event of the estate not being released the Collector continues to represent the legal representative of the last ward. In this connection the following decisions may be referred to: - Gopeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1) Sri Prakash Singh v. Madhusudan (2) It is immaterial whether Smt. Lilawati Devi is in actual physical possession of some of the properties or whether the Collector is in possession of them. The Collector represents Smt. Lilawati Devi as legal representative of Samrath Anand Nath, deceased. It is not necessary to implead Smt. Lilawati Devi as the legal representative of the judgment debtor so long as the estate is not released. The present execution application against the Collector is therefore proper and the attached properties can be sold in execution without impleading Smt. Lilawati Devi. The execution first appeals are accordingly allowed with costs, the orders of the executing court are set aside and the cases are remanded to it for taking proceeding in execution in accordance with law. .;