JUDGMENT 1. The question in this appeal is whether the execution of the decree obtained by the Appellants, Bhramar Singh Nahar and others, against Har Chandra Das Barman should proceed against Respondent No. 2, Umesh Chandra Das Barman. The lower Court by its order, dated the 2nd March, 1936. has held that the execution cannot proceed against the said Respondent. This appeal is accordingly by the decree-holders. The facts are not in dispute. Har Chandra Das Barman who was a tehsildar under Bhramar Singh Nahar and others, called hereafter the Nahars, for the due performance of his duties, executed a Jamini kabuliat by which he charged some of his properties. His share in Touzi No. 181 (residuary) was one of the properties included in this security. The Nahars instituted a suit against him in the year 1932, being No. 85 of that year, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur. In the suit they claimed for accounts and asked for the sale of the hypothecated properties for the amount that may be found payable to them by their tehsildar Har Chandra. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,200-9-9 together with costs on the 14th May, 1934, and on that date a preliminary decree was made directing that in default of payment of the decretal amount there would be a sale of the hypothecated properties. This decree was made final in the usual course and it is this final decree that was being executed, the application for execution being filed on the 1st March, 1935. In the tabular statement the execution is sought against not only Har Chandra Das but also against his brother Umesh Chandra Das. Umesh Chandra's name did not appear in the decree: but the decree-holder's case is that as Umesh Chandra has purchased pendente lite the right, title and interest of Har Chandra in Touzi No. 181 (residuary) which was one of the properties in respect of which the decree for sale had been passed, he is a representative of the judgment-debtor Har Chandra Das and therefore execution should proceed in his presence and against the said estate 181 (residuary) which he has purchased. On that case the decree-holders, the Nahars, made him a party to their application for execution. As we have already said, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that execution cannot proceed against him. 2. On that case the decree-holders, the Nahars, made him a party to their application for execution. As we have already said, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that execution cannot proceed against him. 2. The whole question is whether Umesh Chandra Das is a representative in interest of the judgment-debtor Har Chandra. If he had merely purchased the right, title and interest of Har Chandra Das in Touzi No. 181 residuary after the institution of suit No. 85 of 1932, he would be the representative-in-interest of Har Chandra Das because he purchased during the pendency of that suit which was a suit to enforce the charge on the property purchased by him. If, however, the effect of his purchase be that he has purchased the same free from all incumbrances, he would not be a representative of the judgment-debtor. The sole question therefore is the effect of his purchase. 3. In respect of Touzi No. 181 separate accounts had been opened with the Collector under sec. 10 of Act XI of 1859. Umesh Chandra Das's interest was recorded in separate account No. 3 and Har Chandra Das's interest was within the residuary. The residue fell into arrears and it was put up to sale. It appears that when the said residuary estate was put up to sale under the provisions of sec. 13 of Act XI of 1859, bids were not sufficient to cover the arrears, with the result that under the first paragraph of sec. 14 the Collector stopped the sale and made a declaration that the entire estate would be put up to sale at a future date unless the other recorded co-proprietors or some of them within 10 days purchased the share in arrear, namely the residuary, by paying to the Government the whole of the arrears due from such share. Within the 10 days Umesh Chandra Das, who was recorded as the owner of the separate estate No. 3, which was not in arrears, made an application exercising the right given to him to purchase the share in default by depositing the whole of the arrears due in respect of the same. His application was granted and he was declared the purchaser of the residuary share of Touzi No. 181. His application was granted and he was declared the purchaser of the residuary share of Touzi No. 181. His application was filed on the 3rd July, 1934, and on the next day the Collector declared him to be the purchaser in accordance with the second paragraph of sec. 14. The question is whether he purchased the said share subject to incumbrances, that is to say, whether he merely stepped into the shoes of the defaulting proprietors, namely the owners of the residuary share, or he took the said share free from all incumbrances. In our judgment he stepped into the shoes of the defaulting proprietors and purchased the residuary share subject to incumbrances. 4. It is necessary to bear in mind the provisions of law relating to the procedure the Collector has to adopt, when a separate account or a residuary share falls into arrears. He has to advertise only the said share for sale. If on the day fixed for sale the bid is sufficient to cover the arrears due for such share, the share is to be sold to the highest bidder. At such sale the defaulter himself may bid, a stranger may bid or the owner of any of the other separate accounts which is not in default may offer bid. The purchaser, whoever he may be, at the sale so held, would acquire the rights which are defined in sec. 54 of the Act namely, he would acquire the share so put up to sale subject to all incumbrances and shall not acquire any rights which were not possessed by the previous owner; in short he would acquire the right, title and interest of the defaulting proprietor of the share so advertised. If the bid is not sufficient to cover the arrears, the advertised sale is to be stopped by the Collector under the power given to him by the first paragraph of sec. 14 and the Collector is required to make a declaration that the entire estate would be put up to sale for the arrears at a future date unless the other recorded sharer or sharers come forward and purchase the defaulting share by paying the whole of the arrears then due for the same within ten days. 14 and the Collector is required to make a declaration that the entire estate would be put up to sale for the arrears at a future date unless the other recorded sharer or sharers come forward and purchase the defaulting share by paying the whole of the arrears then due for the same within ten days. If the other recorded sharer or sharers come forward and make the necessary deposit within the said time, he is to be deemed the purchaser of the said share and the Collector is required to give him a certificate in the prescribed form and deliver to him possession of the share so purchased and the co-sharer so purchasing shall have the same rights as if he had purchased the share at the sale. The words "at the sale" used in second paragraph of sec. 14 obviously refer to the sale contemplated under the provisions of sec. 13, that is to say, he would step into the shoes of the defaulting proprietor with no rights in the share purchased by him higher than the rights which belonged to the defaulting sharer. If the option of purchasing the defaulting share by the other recorded sharers by depositing with the Collector the arrears due be not exercised, the third paragraph of sec. 14 comes into operation and in that case all the separate accounts are to be closed and the entire estate is to be advertised for sale. If the entire estate is advertised for sale whether in the first instance or after closing separate accounts, the purchaser at such a sale would acquire the rights defined in sec. 37 of the Act, that is to say subject to certain exceptions mentioned in that section he would get the estate free from all incumbrances. To this there are exceptions, being those mentioned in sec. 53 of the Act. The view therefore that we take is that if the recorded sharer or sharers purchase under paragraph 2 of sec. 14 a separate account or the residuary share, he would only acquire the right, title and interest of the defaulting sharer. This follows from the terms of the second paragraph of the said section as also from the terms of sec. 54 which includes not only the purchase of a share of an estate effected under the provisions of sec. 14 a separate account or the residuary share, he would only acquire the right, title and interest of the defaulting sharer. This follows from the terms of the second paragraph of the said section as also from the terms of sec. 54 which includes not only the purchase of a share of an estate effected under the provisions of sec. 13 but also a purchase of a share effected under the provisions of sec. 14. If such a person were to get the higher rights which were conferred upon the purchaser of the entire estate under sec. 37, sec. 14 would not have been mentioned in sec. 54 of the Act. 5. Mr. Sanyal who appears on behalf of Umesh Chandra Das contends by referring to the opening words of sec. 53 that a recorded co-sharer of a separate account who is allowed to purchase another separate account in default under the second paragraph of sec. 14 acquires the share free from all incumbrances. We do not think that sec. 53 supports his contention. Sec. 53 contemplates the sale of an entire estate and not a share therein. Even when in respect of the estate separate accounts have been opened there may be the contingency where the entire estate will have to be sold, that is to say where the sale under sec. 13 does not fetch the price to cover the arrears or where none of the other recorded co-sharers come forward to purchase the share in default by depositing with the Collector the arrears then due in respect of separate account in default. If in that contingency where the entire estate is sold by the Collector at a later date after closing the separate accounts, any of the recorded co-owners with whom the Collector had opened separate accounts under secs. 10 and 11 who were not the owners of the share in default come forward and purchase at such a sale, they would have all the rights of the revenue purchaser of an entire estate under sec. 37 of the Act. That in our judgment is the meaning of the opening words of sec. 53 namely, "Excepting sharers with whom the Collector under secs. 10 and 11 of the Act has opened separate accounts..............." The view therefore that we take is that sec. 53 is not an exception to sec. 14 but it is an exception to sec. That in our judgment is the meaning of the opening words of sec. 53 namely, "Excepting sharers with whom the Collector under secs. 10 and 11 of the Act has opened separate accounts..............." The view therefore that we take is that sec. 53 is not an exception to sec. 14 but it is an exception to sec. 37 of the Act and the opening words of sec. 53 are an exception to the provisions of that section, the net result being that if sharers with whom the Collector had opened separate accounts purchased the entire estate after separate accounts had been closed, the sale being caused not by their default but by the default of the sharer of another separate account or the residuary, they would take the estate so purchased free from encumbrances in terms of sec. 37. We, accordingly, hold that Umesh Chandra Das Barman is the representative-in-interest of the judgment-debtor Harchandra Das so far as this execution is concerned and that he had been rightly made a party to the execution proceedings. 6. The result is that we set aside the order under appeal and send back the case to the lower Court so that execution may proceed from the stage at which it was before the order under appeal was passed. The Appellants are entitled to costs of this hearing against Respondent No. 2 Umesh Chandra Das Barman -- hearing-fee being assessed at three gold mohurs.