Judgment 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the Judgment of Das, J., who, agreeing with the Courts below, has dismissed their suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of 12 annas interest in the land in suit, and for a further declaration that the sale-deed in Bent Execution case No. 2163 of 1940 was not binding oil them. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, which are no longer in controversy, are as follows: One Puhupnath Jha, purchased the suit land, which is an occupancy holding, on the 13th of July, 1886. He died issueless, leaving behind as his heirs, the sons of his four pre-deceased brothers. The plaintiffs are the heirs of three of those brothers. The fourth brother had a son, Brahmalal, father of the defendant third party in the action. Brahmalal, was alone recorded in the record of rights, prepared at the time of the cadastral survey, as the tenant in respect of the holding. The Courts below concurrently found that the heirs of all the four brothers of Puhupnath had interest in the holding, but Brahmalal was allowed to represent the holdings and he was accordingly alone recorded in the landlords sharista. The rent of the holding fell into arrears and the landlord brought a suit against Brahmalal alone for arrears of rent and obtained a decree on the 14th of June 1938. Brahmalal died after the decree, and execution was taken out on the 2nd of August 1940, in Rent Execution Case No. 2163 of 1940 against his son Ratanlal and the entire holding was sold on the 17th of January 1941, in execution of the decree and purchased by the landlord, who later on settled the land with the defendant first party. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had no knowledge of the execution case or the sale of the holding and they came to know of the sale for me first time in May, 1945, when they were dispossessed by the defendant first party. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they had no knowledge of the execution case or the sale of the holding and they came to know of the sale for me first time in May, 1945, when they were dispossessed by the defendant first party. It is not disputed now that the decree for arrears of rent obtained against Brahmalal had the effect of a rent decree; but the plaintiffs case is that the sale held in execution of the decree, taken out against Katanlal alone, is not binding on them because, according to them, Ratanlal was never put forward by them to represent the holding, nor was he impleaded in the execution proceeding in a representative capacity. 4. Both the Courts below held, as already stated, that the decree obtained against Brahmalal had the effect of a rent decree and the sale held in the presence of Ratanlal had the effect of a rent sale. The Court of appeal below recorded its finding thus: "it is true that Ratanlal so long did not represent the holding, which was represented by his father. But in the circumstances, the landlord had no other alternative than to execute the decree against the heir and legal representative of Brahmalal." 5. It has been contended before us by Mr. M. N. Pal, on behalf of the appellants, that though Brahmalal represented the plaintiffs in the landlords sharista and, therefore, the decree obtained against Brahmaial would operate as a rent decree, the principle of representation came to an end with the ueath of Brahmalal, and after his death, Ratanlal was never put forward before the landlord to represent the holding; and, therefore, if, on his death, the landlord did not choose to execute the decree against all the tenants of the holding, the sale held in execution taken out against Ratanlal alone could not have the effect of a rent sale and only the right, title and interest of Ratanlal passed and the plaintiffs interest was not at all affected by the sale. 6. 6. The same argument was advanced before Das, J. In rejecting this contention, he observed "A benamidar is some sort of a trustee, and it is, I think, well settled that on the death of the benamidar his son succeeds to the trusteeship." and on the analogy of this benami theory, he held: "On his "(Brahamalals) " death the decree-holder could under Sec. 50, Civil Procedure Code, proceed against his legal representative, namely, his son Ratanlal." He further held "In my opinion, execution against Ratanlal, the legal representative of the recorded tenant Who represented the holding, did not deprive the landlord of his right to enforce the decree against the holding itself. Therefore, by the execution sale ...... ,the holding itself passed, and whatever interest the appellants had in the holding passed with that sale." 7. In my opinion, the analogy of a benamidar cannot hold good in the present case. When Brahmalal was recorded in the landlords sharista and put forward as the person responsible for the payment of the rent of the entire holding, such arrangement must, in my opinion, be presumed to have been to the knowledge of the landlord. On Brahmalals death, therefore, all the persons interested in the holding and liable for payment of rent ought to have been substituted in order to have the effect of a rent sale. 8. On Brahmalals death, therefore, all the persons interested in the holding and liable for payment of rent ought to have been substituted in order to have the effect of a rent sale. 8. Sec. 50, Code of Civil procedure, provides: "Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased." Now, "Legal representative", as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, means: "a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in, a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued." Thus where the deceased was sued in his personal capacity, his heir is the legal representative; if there is some person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, then the intermeddler, though a stranger, becomes his legal representative; and if a party is sued in a representative character, then the person or persons on whom the estate devolves on the death, of the party so sued, becomes or become his legal representative. 9. Here Brahmalal was sued, certainly not in his personal capacity, but in a representative character. He was the person put forward as the tenant liable for payment of rent of the entire holding on behalf of all the persons interested therein, including the plaintiffs. On his death, however, according to the finding of the Court of appeal below, this arrangement camp to an end. Therefore, on his death, the liability for the payment of rent devolved on all those persons who were interested in the holding. There is no suggestion that after his death Ratanlal alone was allowed to be recorded in the landlords sharista. In the circumstances, Ratanlai could not be said to be the legal representative of Brahmalal. In my opinion, therefore, the proper course for the landlord was to take out execution against all the persons who were interested in the holding and were in possession thereof. Consequently, if the landlord took out the execution against Ratanlal alone, only his, right, title and interest in the holding passed, and the plaintiffs interest therein remained unaffected. 10. Mr. In my opinion, therefore, the proper course for the landlord was to take out execution against all the persons who were interested in the holding and were in possession thereof. Consequently, if the landlord took out the execution against Ratanlal alone, only his, right, title and interest in the holding passed, and the plaintiffs interest therein remained unaffected. 10. Mr. H. P. Sinha, on behalf of the respondents strongly relies on the decision in Manrup Mandal V/s. Badri Sao, AIR (29) 1942 Pat 383, in which it was held: "Where there are several tenants of a particular holding, but they allow the holding to be represented by one of themselves in the landlords serishta, the landlord would be entitled to bring a suit only against that person who represents the holding and the decree obtained by him in such a suit will be a rent decree and not a money decree, and in execution of the decree the entire holding can be sold." Stress is laid on the concluding words "in execution of the decree the entire holding can be sold." But this pre-supposes that the execution is taken out against the person who represents the holding. It cannot mean that where the judgment-debtor is dead and execution is taken out against only one of the persons who represent the holding, the whole holding will still pass by the sale. 11 On the findings, the plaintiffs have got 12 annas share in the holding. They are, therefore, entitled to a declaration of their title to 12 annas share. Since they have been dispossessed, the dispossession is illegal and they must, in law, get back possession. 12. In the view we take, it is unnecessary to consider the other point raised by Mr. M. N. Pal, namely, whether sec. 26-N or 26-B of the Bihar Tenancy Act governs the present case. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the decisions of Das, J., as well as of the Courts below are set aside. In the circumstances parties should bear their own costs throughout.