ORDER Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.- This is an appeal at the instance of the decree-holder against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli declining to issue a garnishee order on Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company, Tiruchirappalli. One B.C. Bushad, who was a wholesale dealer for the sale of the products of the garnishee was indebted to the appellant in a large sum of money. He died in December, 1948. The agency, which the deceased had with the garnishee was later taken up by his widow Sangawa, the first respondent to this appeal. In the course of the business, she became entitled to certain moneys by way of commission for the sale of tea done by her. The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 3 of 1951, on the file of this Court in respect of amounts due from Bushad, impleading the respondents 1 to 3 herein, namely, the widow and his two minor children. He obtained a decree on 6th October, 1952, for a sum of Rs. 15,421, plus costs against the respondents limited to the extent of Bushad's assets in their hands. That decree has been affirmed on appeal. He then applied to this Court for transfer of the decree for execution by the Sub-Court at Tiruchirappalli, as he came to know that certain moneys belonging to the deceased Bushad were with Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company who were having their Head Office at Tiruchirappalli. The decree was accordingly transmitted for execution to that Court, where he applied for attachment of sum of Rs. 25,000, which was standing to the credit of the respondents. This application was contested by the judgment-debtors. They pleaded that the sum of Rs. 25,000, was commission earned by the first respondent in respect of her own agency which was granted to her by the garnishee on 9th March, 1959, and that it had nothing to do with any asset of the deceased. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted that contention and dismissed the execution application. We are of opinion that in rejecting the application of the decree-holder, the learned Subordinate Judge has not enquired into the matter as fully as he should have done. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted that contention and dismissed the execution application. We are of opinion that in rejecting the application of the decree-holder, the learned Subordinate Judge has not enquired into the matter as fully as he should have done. Under section 52 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, where a decree for money is passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person, it would be open to the decree-holder to attach and bring to sale any of the properties left by the deceased. But where the legal representative received certain assets of the deceased but at the same time disposed of them, he will have to satisfy the Court that in so disposing of the assets, he had applied the proceeds in paying off the debts of the deceased. In other words, in such a case it will be the duty of the representative to account for the assets received by him. So long as the property of the deceased which has come into the hands of the legal representative has not been duly applied by him, the decree may be executed against the legal representative as if such a decree had been passed against him personally to the extent of non-application. Therefore, two important questions arise in this case. The first is whether the funds now standing to the credit of the first respondent with Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company could really be said to be part of the assets of the deceased Bushad, and secondly, even if it be regarded that the amount now standing to the credit of the first respondent was her money, what happened to the assets of Bushad which were in the hands of the garnishee on the date of the death of the former e If there were no such moneys then it can be taken that any amount standing to the credit of the first respondent in the books of the garnishee did not form part of assets of the deceased. But if there were some moneys, then the Court should have investigated as to what happened to them. Let us illustrate it by means of an example. Suppose there was a sum of Rs. 40,000, with the garnishee to the credit of the deceased on the date of his death. The legal representatives could be entitled to that money. But if there were some moneys, then the Court should have investigated as to what happened to them. Let us illustrate it by means of an example. Suppose there was a sum of Rs. 40,000, with the garnishee to the credit of the deceased on the date of his death. The legal representatives could be entitled to that money. Suppose subsequently, the first respondent, as a result of her own exertions, was able to earn a commission of Rs. 25,000, and that out of the total amount of Rs. 65,000, she had withdrawn an amount to the extent of Rs. 40,000 in such a case it cannot be stated as a matter of law that the balance of Rs. 25,000, necessarily forms part of the moneys of the first respondent. It may be that the moneys of the deceased were retained and the moneys of the first respondeat drawn. Under these circumstances, it will be the duty of the first respondent to account to the Court as to what happened to the moneys which were standing to the credit of the deceased at the time of his death with garnishee. Again if it were to be held that the sum of Rs. 25,000, now standing to the credit of the first respondent with the garnishee is her own money, the question will then arise under section 52 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to whether any property of the deceased still remains in the possession of the judgment-debtors and whether they have duly accounted for the assets received. It has been held in Suryanarayana v. Rajalakshmi Devi Amma1, that to make section 52, Civil Procedure Code, applicable, it is not essential that the Court should be satisfied that the legal representatives have exhausted all the properties that they obtained as part of the estate of the deceased. No investigation of that kind has been made in the present case. In paragraph 8 of the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment, there is a reference to certain payments of income-tax due by the deceased. But no effort has been made to take an account of the assets received. It is said that they were paid out of certain bank deposits; under these circumstances we are of opinion that the matter can be finally disposed of only after full investigation of the question. But no effort has been made to take an account of the assets received. It is said that they were paid out of certain bank deposits; under these circumstances we are of opinion that the matter can be finally disposed of only after full investigation of the question. If the Court finds that the assets now standing to the credit of first respondent with Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company represent part of the estate of the deceased, it will be then its plain duty to direct execution to issue. For that purpose the first respondent should be called upon to account for the assets received from Kannan Devan Hill Produce Company in respect of the moneys due to her deceased husband. It is no doubt stated that the legal representatives have got certain immovable properties which they inherited from the deceased somewhere in the Bombay State. Before the Court can call upon the decree-holder to proceed against those properties, “it must first be satisfied that the moneys now with the garnishee do not represent or could not be said to represent the estate of the deceased. It is also subsequent to the disposal of the execution petition by the lower Court, the first respondent has withdrawn even the sum of Rs. 25,000 that was standing to her credit with garnishee. That, however, will not make any difference to the question that has to be decided in the case. The lower Court will call upon the first respondent to bring back into Court the sum withdrawn by her subsequent: to the attachment made in the case. The order of the lower Court will be set aside and the appeal remanded for disposal in the light of the observations we have made herein. Costs to abide the result. K.S.-----Order set aside and appeal remanded.