The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the managing member of a Hindu family to receive monies on behalf of the family and give a discharge binding all decree-holders, as recognized under Hindu Law.

1. In this case a decree was passed in favour of two persons, members of a joint Hindu family, by the Subordinate Judges Court of Kumbakonam in a small Cause suit. The first plaintiff in the suit was the managing member. Both the plaintiffs were minors at the time when the decree was passed. The present application for execution was put in by both of them. The first plaintiff had attained majority more than three years before the date when the application was put in. But the second plaintiff is alleged to have attained majority less than-three years before that date. The judgment-debtor contended that the execution of the decree was barred by limitation and the Subordinate Judge upheld his contention. A petition to revise the Subordinate Judges order was filed in this Court and Abdur Rahim J. holding that the application was not barred by limitation reversed the order of the lower court. This appeal is against the order of the learned Judge. The question has to be decided under the provisions of Section 7 of the present Limitation Act (IX of 1908). The corresponding section in the repealed Act (XV of 1877) viz., Section 8, did not apply to applications for execution of decrees. That section has been altered in the present statute so as to make it applicable to such applications. Section 7 of the new Act provides:-

"Where one of several persons jointly entitled to make an application for the execution of a decree, is under any such disability, (i.e., minority etc.) and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all, but where no discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased."

The section, it cannot be denied, contemplates the existence of cases where one of several decree-holders can give a discharge without the concurrence of the others. It is contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that it is only where a joint judgment-creditor has expressly authorised another as his agent to give a discharge that the other could give a discharge within the meaning of the section. The section itself does not lay down in what cases one decree-holder could give a discharge so as to bind other decree-holders. That must be decided by the substantive law governing the parties. According to Hindu Law there can be no doubt that the managing member of a Hindu family can receive monies on behalf of the family from debtors and give a discharge so as to bind the whole family. There is, in our opinion, no section in the Civil Procedure Code restricting the managers power to receive monies on behalf of the family when a decree has been passed. It is admitted that monies realised in execution of decrees could be dealt with by the managing member after realisation in the same manner as he is entitled to deal with other monies. We can see no reason for holding that his powers with respect to the realisation of monies for which decrees have been passed should be more restricted than his powers with respect to collection of other monies. Order XXI, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) corresponding to Section 257 of the old Code provides, no doubt, that all monies payable under a decree may be paid inter alia to the decree-holder out of court and the expression "decree-holder" would, no doubt, mean decree-holders where there are more persons than one, in favour of whom a decree has been passed. But the question is : - "Is not payment to a decree-holder who is the managing member of a family and jointly entitled along with its junior members to the benefit of the decree, a payment to all the decree-holders, if the substantive law of the parties entitles him to receive monies on behalf of the Family?" There is no reason for holding that it is not. The position of a managing member is similar, for the purposes of the present question, to that of an