1. This is an appeal by Lakshmibai, the widow of Sidhojirao, against an order in execution passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. Before hearing the appeal, it has been necessary for us to dispose of two applications, made by Raghunath and Murarao, respectively, to be joined as parties. The application of Raghunath can be at once granted, as he was a party to the proceedings in the lower Court as the representative of Rakhmabai, who was a party to the decree of which execution is now sought, and the decree-holder, the respondent in this Court, consents.,
2. The application of Murarao stands on a different footing. When Sidhojirao died after decree, the respondent caused a notice under Section 248 to be issued to his widow, Lakshmibai, and she was accordingly placed on the record as his legal representative; but Murarao now claims to be placed on the record as the son adopted by Lakshmibai to Sidhojirao, and, therefore, his legal representative. Lakshmibai denies the adoption, alleges another adoption, and opposes the application. As, however, the decree-holder consents, we grant the application. The applicant may or may not be the adopted son of Sidhojirao; but whether he is or is not, it would appear, on the analogy of the case of Lakshmibai v. Balkrishna I.L.R. 4 Bom. 654 that there is no objection to entering his name on the record if the decree-holder consents; and indeed, as there pointed out, it tends to his own security that this should be done. In another case, Athiappa v. Ayanna I.L.R. 8 Mad. 300 the claimant was, under somewhat similar circumstances, made a party to the appeal. We, therefore, place Murarao also on the record as one claiming to be the representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, Sidhojirao, and make both him and Raghunath co. appellants with Lakshmibai.
3. The appeal itself relates to the sale of certain ornaments which have been attached in execution of the decree. The widow, Lakshmibai, asked that they should be sold, not at Belgaum, where they are held in attachment by order of the Subordinate Court, but at Bombay, on the ground that they would probably fetch a higher price there. The application was opposed by the judgment-creditor and refused by the Subordinate Judge. Lakshmibai has now appealed. We are unable to find that the order is in any respect either illegal or improper. The Subordinate Judge, on facts which were before him, came to the conclusion that a fair sale could be had in Belgaum. No materials are before us for a contrary finding. The mere contention that a higher price is likely to be bid in Bombay than at an out-station might be made in the case of almost every sale, and would lead to endless disputes if lightly yielded to. There can be no doubt that the Code intended that a sale should ordinarily be held at some place within the jurisdiction of the Court ordering the sale. Good and sufficient reasons ought to be shown for directing otherwise. We do not find any such reasons in the present case; and, therefore, confirm the Subordinate Judge's order, and direct each of the appellants to bear his and her own costs. The appellant Lakshmibai to bear also the costs of the respondent.