1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of two decrees for rent. These decrees were obtained against a Hindu widow and on her death the reversionary heirs of the husband were brought on the record as her representatives for the purposes of the execution. The only questions in these appeals are, whether the holding in respect of which decrees for rent were obtained, being now in the hands of the reversionary heirs, can be sold in execution of decrees obtained, against the widow. In support of his contention that the defaulting holding cannot be sold, the appellant has invited our attention to the cases of Kristo Gobind v. Hem Chunder 16 C. 511 and Bireswar Das Bey v. Kamal Kumar Butt 16 Ind. Cas. 437 : 17 C.W.N. 337. But in these two cases the question for decision was whether the estate of the husband (other than the defaulting tenure) could be sold in execution of such decrees. They, therefore, throw no light upon the present question. On the other hand the case of Jiban Krishna Boy v. Brojo Lal Sen 30 C. 550 : 5 Bom. L.R. 428 : 30 I.A. 81 (P.C.) : 7 C.W.N. 425 decided by,their Lordships of the Privy Council appears to us to be good authority for the proposition that the tenure in the hands of the reversionary heirs does remain liable in respect of decrees for rent obtained in the time of the widow; and this also is in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. For these reasons we dismiss the appeals with costs. We assess the hearing-fee at one gold mohur in each case.