Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiff is an indorsee from the widow and the two sons of the payee, while the defendants are the widow and the son of the maker of the promissory note. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsiff of Palni on two grounds. The first was that the plaintiff could not succeed without a succession certificate and the second was that the members of the family of the deceased maker of the note could not be made liable for an obligation of the deceased under a promissory note. He relied on the Full Bench decision reported in Maruthamuthu Naicker v. Kadir Badsha Bowther AIR1938Mad377 .

2. The first point turns on the effect of Section 3 of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, which says that

When a Hindu governed by any School of Hindu law other than the Dhayabag School or by customary law dies intestate having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) have in the property the same interest as he himself had:

and it adds in Sub-section (3) that

Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hind