The legal representatives of the plaintiff, who originally filed the second appeal and died during its pendency, are the appellants. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was filed for a declaration that a decree obtained by the defendant against one Alamelu Ammal, widow of Kothandapani Pillai, was not binding on the estate of Kothandapani to which the plaintiff had succeeded as reversioner on the death of the widow. Kothandapani died on 12th February, 1925, leaving landed properties to which his widow Alamelu succeeded as his heir. On 25th December, 1926, she executed a promissory note (Ex.D-1) for Rs.600 in favour of one Krishnaswami Naidu who endorsed it on 18th September, 1934, in favour of the defendant in the present suit who sued Alamelu, the maker of the note, and obtained an ex parte decree against her in O.S.No.367 of 1934, on the file of the District Munsiff’s Court of Negapatam for the amount due under the promissory note. The relevant portion of the decree (Ex.D-5) was in these terms:

“It is ordered that the defendant personally and from the estate of her deceased husband in her possession do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.1,083 with interest on Rs.600 at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum from 24th September. 1934. . . . . . .”

Alamelu died in December 1939, and the present plaintiff went into possession of the properties of Kothandapani as the next male reversioner. The present defendant who, as plaintiff, had obtained the decree in O.S.No.367 of 1934, sought to execute the decree against the estate of Kothandapani in the hands of the present plaintiff and this suit is the sequel to the attempted execution. The plaintiff’s case was that the promissory note dated 25th December, 1926, was not supported by any consideration but was collusively and fraudulently executed by the widow; that, in any case, there was no need for the widow to borrow; that, the widow who had first contested O.S.No.367 of 1934, the suit filed by the endorsee, subsequently suffered an ex parte decree to be passed against her without any justification; and that in no event, could the decree passed in favour of an endorsee of a promissory note given by the widow be executed against the estate in the hands of the reversioner. The defendant denied these allegations of law and fact. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit holding that the debt under the promissory note was borrowed by the widow for purposes binding on the estate and that the decree was capable of being executed against the estate of the deceased Kothandapani in the hands of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal.

Counsel for the appellant has put forward various contentions. It is argued that the decree in O.S.No.367 of 1934 has not been, on a proper construction, passed against the estate of the deceased Kothandapani as such, but only against the widow Alamelu and therefore it is not executable against the properties of Kothandapani in the hands of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not the heir-at-law or legal representative of the widow. Therefore it is said that the estate of Kothandapani in his hands is not liable to satisfy a decree against the widow. Reference is made in this connection to a decision of Wallace, J., in Narasimiah v. Jawanthraj Sowcar1. With reference to a decree passed under circumstances and in terms similar to those of Ex.D-5, the learned Judge observed that it did not direct that:

“the estate of the deceased now in the hands of the first defendant do pay the decree amount but that the first defendant do pay the decree amount from the estate of the deceased.”

The learned Judge then observed as follows:-

“To my mind the judgment-debtor of that decree is clearly not the estate but the first defendant, whose liability again is limited to liability to meet the decree amount from the estate of the deceased, and the present petitioner is not the legal representative of the first defendant but the legal owner of the estate in his