JUDGMENT : A.M. Ahmadi & K. Ramaswami, JJ. - Special leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. We have perused the judgment of the High Court. We find that the appellant Begum Aftab Zamani had raised an objection that she was not a legal representative of the deceased judgment- debtor Syed Murtaza Ali Khan who passed away in 1982. The money decree was passed against him and it is that decree which is put to execution. Since the judgment-debtor had passed away the decree was sought to be executed by the attachment and sale of his property by impleading his widow as his legal representative. The lady raised an objection that she was not his legal representative as the rule of primogeniture applied and was, therefore, not entitled to represent his estate. Without deciding this question the High Court rejected her revision application. The question which the High Court was required to consider was whether the rule of primogeniture applied in regard to the estate which was the subject matter of execution. Without deciding that issue, the High Court disposed of the Revision application on the plea that she had no locus standi as on her own saying she had no right in the property. It was necessary that the High Court record a clear finding whether or not she was a legal representative of the deceased and was entitled to represent his estate in execution. If not, the property could not be sold in execution without the legal representative being on record. Unless it is found that she had inherited the property on the demise of her husband, she could not represent the estate and would be a virtual stranger. We, therefore, do not see how we can sustain the order of the High Court. The impugned order, must therefore, be set aside. We hereby set it aside. 3. We, however, clarify that if the appellant is also a judgment-debtor under that very decree, as we are so told although the High Court judgment shows otherwise, this order will not preclude the judgment-creditor from realising its dues from her or from her own estate in accordance with law. So also this order will not preclude the respondent-bank from seeking to execute the decree against the judgment-debtor's son by impleading him in execution proceedings if permissible under law. So also this order will not preclude the respondent-bank from seeking to execute the decree against the judgment-debtor's son by impleading him in execution proceedings if permissible under law. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for disposal of the Revision Application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.