JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - The material facts in this case are as follows: One Kamini Sundari Gupta, shebait of Sri Sri Sridhar Bigraha obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the Opposite Party to this Rule on September 6, 1943. Kamini Sundari died on September 26, 1943. On March 3, 1944, the present Petitioners instituted rent execution proceedings against the judgment-debtors claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Kamini Sundari Gupta as shebait of Sri Sri Sridhar Bigraha. The Rent Execution Case was numbered as Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944. June 17, 1944, was fixed for the sale of the holding. On June 3, 1944, Sailaja Sundari Gupta instituted proceedings in execution of the same decree against the judgment-debtors claiming to be also the legal representative of the deceased Kamini Sundari Gupta as shebait of Sri Sri Sridhar Bigraha. Her Execution Case was numbered Rent Execution Case No. 436 of 1944 and in her case August 17, 1944, was fixed for the sale of the holding in arrears. On June 17, 1944, the judgment-debtor filed an objection under sec. 47 of the CPC in Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944. The objection was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 218 of 1944. The judgment-debtor contended that the Petitioners in Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944 were not the legal representatives of the deceased Kamini Sundari Gupta, but that Sailaja Sundari was the true legal representative of the deceased Kamini Sundari. On July 15, 1944, Sailaja filed two petitions before the Court. The first petition prayed for analogous hearing of the Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944 and Rent Execution Case No. 436 of 1944. The second petition prayed for stay of proceedings in both cases pending the decision of the question of title between the present Petitioners and Sailaja Sundari to be ascertained in a suit properly filed for the purpose. The learned Munsif heard both parties and came to the conclusion that the executing Court could not determine the question in the present case as to which of the rival claimants was the legal representatives of the deceased Kamini Sundari and stayed further proceedings in both execution cases and instructed the parties to have the question determined in a properly framed suit. 2. The present Petitioners appealed against the decision of the learned Munsif. 2. The present Petitioners appealed against the decision of the learned Munsif. Their appeal was heard by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court of Mymensingh. The learned Subordinate Judge held that no appeal lay, but he expressed the opinion that the learned Munsif had refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. 3. A Rule was obtained by the present Petitioners and I have been asked to hold that the question as to who is the legal representative of the deceased Kamini Sundari is a question to be decided by the execution Court under the provisions of sec. 47 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. On behalf of the Petitioners it has been argued that the words of the section are perfectly clear and this is a question contemplated by sec. 47 (3). Sec. 47 (3) reads: Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. 5. The learned Munsif relied on two cases for the view that the question could not be decided by the execution Court in the present case; and those two cases have again been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party. The first of those cases is the case of Shankar Lal and Others Vs. Shyam Sunder Lal . In that case the decree-holder sought to execute a decree against the heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor. Two parties claimed to be heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor. The decree-holders brought both parties on the record. It was held that when both parties were on the record the question as to who was the proper legal representative did not arise for decision under sec. 47 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Obviously that case can be distinguished from the present case. When both parties claiming to be the heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor were on the record it was not necessary for the purpose of execution to decide which of them did in fact represent the deceased judgment-debtor. 6. The second case relied upon by the learned Munsif is the case of Venubai Guracharya v. Damodar Vyasrao A. I. R. [1933] Bom. 306 The facts of that case were somewhat peculiar and the decision is based on the view that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 is ancillary to sec. 6. The second case relied upon by the learned Munsif is the case of Venubai Guracharya v. Damodar Vyasrao A. I. R. [1933] Bom. 306 The facts of that case were somewhat peculiar and the decision is based on the view that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 is ancillary to sec. 47 (I) and that the question whether or not any person is a representative of a party can only be decided by the execution Court if there is a dispute on the point between persons representing the decree-holder on one side and persons representing the judgment-debtor on the other. 7. In the present case Rent Execution Case No. 169 was instituted by the present Petitioners. The objection that they were not the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder was taken by the judgment-debtor in his objection under sec. 47. It is obvious that execution could not proceed without a decision whether or not the present Petitioners were the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. 8. In my opinion neither of the rulings on which the learned Munsif relied has any application to the facts of the present case, and the present application is one which clearly comes within the express language of the section. I am therefore of opinion that the question whether or not the present Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Kamini Sundari Gupta as shebait of the deity Sri Sri Sridhar Bigraha ought to be decided under sec. 47 (3) in Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944, and if the judgment-debtor objects to execution by Sailaja Sundari in Rent Executi( 11 Case No. 436 of 1944 the question whether or not she is the legal representative of the deceased Kamini Sundari will have to be decided in that Rent Execution Case too. In that event, the learned Munsif, of course, will be entitled to hear the two cases analogously. 9. I am satisfied that the learned Munsif refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under sec. 47 (3) and his order was therefore wrong. 10. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to hear and determine the question whether or not the present Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Kamini Sundari Gupta in Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944. 47 (3) and his order was therefore wrong. 10. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The order of the learned Munsif is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to hear and determine the question whether or not the present Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Kamini Sundari Gupta in Rent Execution Case No. 169 of 1944. The Petitioners are entitled to their costs in this Rule-hearing-fee, one gold mohur.