Wallis, J.

1. In this case the present 2nd defendant obtained a decree for maintenance against the 3rd defendant and recovered in execution Rs. 637 which she was allowed to draw on giving security under Section 253 C.P.C. The surety was the 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiff. The decree was reversed by the High Court, and the 1st defendant as surety was ordered to pay the 3rd defendant the money which had been recovered from him by the 2nd defendant under the decree. The order was made under Section 253 C.P.C. which read with Section 583 C.P.C. was applicable to security for the performance of appellate decrees according to Thirumalai v. Ramayyar. (1889) I.L.R. 13. M. I. This decision has been questioned before us on the ground that it is inconsistent with the later decision in Arunachellam v. Arunachellam (1891) I.L.R. 15 M. 203. decided by the same Judges. In that case the security had been given pending an appeal to the Privy Council, and it was necessary to invoke the aid of Section 610. C.P.C. to render Section 253 applicable to the case. The learned Judges apparently were of opinion that it might have been invoked but for the fact that in 1888 a special proviso