Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by respondent 1 for administration of the estate of the deceased Arunachala Chettiar, the undivided father of minor respondent 2, and the sole question for determination is whether, as contended by the appellants who have obtained decrees against the estate in the hands of respondent 2, a suit for administration is not maintainable. The locus standi of respondent 1, to institute a suit for the administration of the estate, if any, of the deceased Arunachala Chettiar was not disputed and it is common ground that the maintainability or otherwise of the suit depends upon whether or not the joint family properties are or can be deemed to be the estate of the deceased Arunachala Chettiar in the hands of his minor son, respondent 2. It is no doubt true that under the Hindu law, the undivided son or other descendant who succeeds to the joint family property on the death of the ancestor does so by right of survivorship and takes the property in his own right and not as heir of the ancestor, but he is liable under the Hindu law by reason of his pious obligation to pay the debts of the deceased not incurred for illegal or im