Wadsworth, J.

1. The petitioners were the transferee decree-holders against whom the respondents filed an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 praying the Court to scale down the decree debt and to record full satisfaction. In objection to this application it was urged that the applicants as members of an undivided Hindu family paid more than Rs. 100 as kattubadi and were therefore not entitled to claim relief as agriculturists having regard to proviso D to Section 3 (ii) of the Act. The contention of the present petitioners that the respondents were members of an undivided Hindu family was based upon an assertion that in the respondents family there had been a reunion. The lower Court held the view that a reunited family could not be described as an undivided. Hindu family. Against this decision the present petition is filed.

2. It has been pointed by the learned Advocate-General for the petitioners that the Privy Council has laid down, vide Prankishen Paul Chowdry v. Mothooramohun Paul Chowdry (1865) 10 M.I.A. 403 that on a reunion the family is remitted to its former status as a joint Hindu family and that reunion cancels a partition and not only remits th