Horwill, J.

1. The respondent executed a promissory note in favour of the father of the petitioner; and the petitioner, as the son of the payee, brought this suit on it. The defence was that under the Hindu Womans Rights to Property Act of 1937, the widow became entitled to a half share of the property and that the plaintiff was not therefore entitled to bring the suit without impleading his mother. The District Munsiff of Narasaraopet accepted this argument and passed a decree for half the amount, the plaintiffs share in the debt.

2. The learned District Munsiff does not set forth clearly what he considers to be the effect of the Hindu Womans Rights to Property Act, but he seems to think that after the payees death the debt vested in two people who became co-promisees and that therefore the plaintiff was only entitled to one half of the debt. But if the plaintiff and his mother were co-heirs, then the suit should have been dismissed entirely.; for a suit by one co-heir without impleading the other would not be maintainable. I do not however take the view of the Hindu Womans Rights to Property Act which seems to have met with favour in the eyes of the District Munsiff. The ef