1. When the allegations in the plaint are carefully considered, the suit must in substance be regarded, as held by the District Judge to be one for recovery of damages for distraint illegally levied by the deceased Zemindar, the original 1st defendant on certain moveables belonging to the plaintiff, some of which either perished or deteriorated owing to the negligence of the Zemindars servants while the rest was misappropriated by those servants. It cannot be regarded as a suit for recovery of specific moveables appropriated by the original 1st defendant or their value. The nature of the action being such as we have stated the maxim actio personalis moritor cumpersona would apply in the absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary. The scope of this doctrine is thus stated by Bowen L.J. in Phillips v. Homfray (1883) 24 Ch. D. 439 "the only cases in which, apart from question of breach of contract, express or irriplied, a remedy for a wrongful act can be pursued against the estate of a deceased who has done the act appear to us to be those in which the property or the proceeds or the value of property belonging to another have been appropriated by the deceased psrson