JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The allegations on which his suit was founded were the following: That the husband of defendant 1 left a will appointing her and some other persons as executors, giving her permission to adopt and providing that she would remain in management of the properties until the adopted son came to be of 21 years of age; that defendant 1 obtained probate of the will and acted as executrix; that defendant 1 took defendant 2 in adoption, and the latter had instituted a suit against defendant 1 in which defendant 3 had been appointed administrator pendente lite; that defendant 1 as such executrix borrowed money on hand-notes (seven in number) for paying the Government revenue due on the estate but never repaid the same. It was further alleged in the plaint that the loans were taken for legal necessities and that the estate was benefited thereby. In the suit as originally laid defendant 1 was impleaded in her capacity as executrix, and it was prayed that a decree might be passed for the amounts due together with interest etc. against all the defendants and for recovery thereof from the estate itself. The original plaint was filed on 6th