S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) JUDGEMENT-DEBTORS are the petitioners in this Civil Revision. ( 2 ) WHEN an application was filed for stay of further proceedings in the execution proceeding, I directed the civil revision to be heard on merits since I was of the view that merit of the civil revision would be necessary to be considered to consider question of interim stay. ( 3 ) CIVIL Revision is stated not to be ready since there is an application for recalling the order of dismissal of the revision against opposite party No. 3. However, I am of the view that it can be finally disposed of without giving opportunity to this opposite party of being heard. ( 4 ) JUDGEMENT-DEBTORS were in possession of the disputed land having a declaration of possession in their favour under S. 145, Cr. P. C. To avoid such declaration, decree holders has filed a suit with a prayer for recovery 6f possession. Suit was dismissed against which plaintiff preferred an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, plaintiff having died, the decree-holders applied for substitution in place of the appellant to continue the appeal indicating that father of opposite party No. 3 who is the other brother. is not inclined to join in the appeal and should be arrayed as a respondent. Application was allowed. After hearing appeal was allowed. Judgement of the trial court was reversed and the suit was decreed. It was specifically stated in the decree that the appellants and their brother, father of opposite party No. 3, would be entitled to the money in deposit in criminal court. ( 5 ) AFTER obtaining decree, opposite party No. 1 alone filed an application for execution for recovery of possession of the property. Judgement-debtor filed an application under S. 47, C. P. C. challenging the executability of the decree on the ground that the other decree-holder has not joined. Executing court having rejected the said plea this civil revision has been filed by the judgement-debtors. ( 6 ) MR. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree is not a joint decree and under Order 21 Rule 15, CPC, could not protect execution of such decree. It reads as follows :- "15. Executing court having rejected the said plea this civil revision has been filed by the judgement-debtors. ( 6 ) MR. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree is not a joint decree and under Order 21 Rule 15, CPC, could not protect execution of such decree. It reads as follows :- "15. Application for execution by joint decree-holders :- (1) Where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, or, where any of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased. (2) Where the Court sees sufficient cause for allowing the decree is be executed on an application made under this rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application. " ( 7 ) MR. Mohapatra relied upon a decision of Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1953 Bombay 137 (Valchand Gulabchand Shah v. Maneakbai Hirachand Shah) and submitted that the decree is not a joint decree. It was held in the said decision that each of the decree-holders was entitled to specific amounts in the decree and as a result each one could have filed a separate proceeding of execution of his interest in the money decree. Accordingly, Order 21 Rule 15, C. P. C. would not be attracted. It was however, observed in the said decision that where the decree would not be divisible, one of the decree-holders can proceed with the execution on behalf of all the decree-holders. ( 8 ) IT is true that under the Hindu Succession Act, interest of the heirs are specific but land remained joint. Thus, all the three brothers who were sons of original plaintiff have equal interest in the land which have remained joint. Land is thus, joint property of the three brothers even though it may not be joint family property. Once a decree is in favour of the three brothers jointly in respect of a piece of land where each one has equal interest, there is no scope for separate execution by each brother in respect of recovery of possession of land. Land is thus, joint property of the three brothers even though it may not be joint family property. Once a decree is in favour of the three brothers jointly in respect of a piece of land where each one has equal interest, there is no scope for separate execution by each brother in respect of recovery of possession of land. Accordingly, any of the brothers, in whose favour decree is executed can execute the decree for benefit of all under O. 21, R. 15, CPC. Decision of Bombay High Court is distinguishable on facts. ( 9 ) MR. Mohapatra submitted that language of the decree makes it clear that so far as the disputed land is concerned, it is in favour of two brothers who preferred appeal and not in favour of the third brother who did not join because Court was conscious of interest of the third brother who did not join as appellant and accordingly, so far as amount in deposit, clear declaration was given. that he is entitled to the money in deposit but did not express so in respect of the land. I am not inclined to accept such a contention. Suit was decreed by reversing the judgement of dismissal by the trial court. Accordingly, all the three brothers who were the legal representatives of the original plaintiff have interest to the decree. In case, specifically it would have been stated in the decree that appellants alone would have interest in the decree, the question might have been different of which I express no opinion as the same would be of academic interest. In the present case, I am satisfied that the decree was in favour of all the three brothers. ( 10 ) IN result, there is no merit in this Civil Revision which is dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed.