Even if the widow be a legal representative, in terms of the definition under Section 2(11) of the Code and under Section 50, she could be substituted in place of the deceased husband as a legal representative, in view of the special provisions in Section 53 of the Code ' she would not be liable. This section expressly confines the liability to the property in the hands of a son or other descendant. Where joint family property passes by survivorship from one member of a joint family to another, the property is that of the latter, but the section regards it as the property of the deceased in the circumstances mentioned therein and confines the liability in the hands of the son or other descendant. The legal position seems to be uniform that the widow is not a descendant and she gets her right in the husband's property as a statutory heir. (AIR 1966 Bom 169: Rangubai v. Laxman Lalji Patil, and AIR 1977 Pat 185: Keshav Nandan Sahay V. The Bank of Bihar). If the widow would not come within the ambit of the phrase 'other descendant', she would not have liability under Section 53 of the Code. It is unnecessary to refer to many authorities cited at the Bar as most of them have no direct bearing on the point. On the analysis presented above, it should be held that the widow's share in the husband's property received by her under the provision of the Hindu Succession Act would not be available for execution of the decree against the deceased husband and her share, therefore, is immune.”
