Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This appeal raises a question relating to the construction of Section 3, Clause (2) of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937. The relevant facts are few. On the 18th December, 1935, the plaintiff obtained a decree for money in O.S. No. 1138 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif of Coimbatore against the first defendant. Subsequent to the date of the decree the first defendant died. His wife the third defendant was brought on record as his legal representative. The plaintiff sought to implead the brother and the brothers son of the first defendant besides the third defendant, but the Court allowed only the third defendant to be brought on record and dismissed the application against the brother and the brothers son. The order passed by the learned District Munsif is to the following effect:

To implead the widow he relies upon the Act XVIII of 1937 by which a widow obtains the interest of her deceased husband. I do not think that the decree-holder can go both against the widow and against the brother and the brothers son. As the decree-holder is relying upon the Act XVIII of 1937 I must presume that the widow has taken the husbands property