JUDGMENT

Bennett, J - This is a second execution of decree appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow, allowing an appeal against an order of the Munsif, North Lucknow. The appellant, Mt. Munni Bibi, is the widow of a man named Purshottam Das, who had four brothers, Sundar Lal, Narain Prasad, Ram Charan and Ganesh Prasad. In 1920 she instituted a suit for maintenance against these four brothers who, she alleged, formed with her deceased husband a joint Hindu family. The suit was compromised, the brothers agreeing to pay her Rs. 10 per mensem as maintenance. A decree was passed against them accordingly, but no charge was declared on any property. On the death of one of the brothers, Sunder Lal, Mt. Munni made an application for his son, the respondent Radhey Shiam, to be brought on the record in his place. Radhey Shiam opposed this application on the ground that the decree was a personal decree against his father and had no effect against Sundar Lal's heirs. The Munsif disallowed the objection and held that Radhey Shiam was a proper party to the execution proceedings, though his liability extended only to the ancestral property in his hands. Radhey Shiam admitted that his residential house, worth about Rs. 2000 was ancestral property.

2. The Additional Civil Judge took a different view and held that the decree was a personal decree and could not take effect against Sunder Lal's heirs for any maintenance that became due after his death. He accordingly directed that the name of Radhey Shiam should be substituted, "but only for the realization of the amount due from Sundar Lal at the time of his death, from the assets in the hands of Radhey Shiam." Mt. Munni Bibi now seeks to have the order of the Munsif restored, thus making Radhey Shiam liable like his father to the extent of the ancestral property in his possession. I have mentioned that Purshottam Das had four brothers, Sundar Lal, Narain Prasad, Ram Charan and Ganesh Prasad. This appears from the pedigree given in the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, and it was accepted as correct by the counsel for the parties in this Court. I observe, however, that the Munsif gives a rather different pedigree in his judgment. According to that pedigree, Sundar Lal was the son of Narain Prasad, and there was another brother, Madan Lal, who died issueless. The Munsif says that this pedigree was admitted by the parties, though earlier in the judgment he says that according to Mt. Munni Bibi's counsel, Govind Prasad, who was the head and karta of the joint Hindu family, left five sons, Ram Charan, Ganesh Prasad, Madan Lal, Sundar Lal and Narain Prasad. There was another son, who is referred to by the Munsif as Purshottam Prasad, not Purshotam Das, who predeceased his father. It would appear that the Munsif's pedigree is not correct, as that given by the Additional Civil Judge has been accepted by counsel in this appeal as correct.

3. The Munsif was of opinion that Govind Prasad was morally and legally bound to provide for his son's widow and that this liability descended to his sons on his death, to the extent of the ancestral property in their possession. He refers to certain sections in support of this view, but does not say what they are sections of. I find that he was referring to Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law. The Additional Civil Judge was impressed by the fact that the decree was in terms only against certain members of the family and observed that had the plaintiff wanted a decree against the whole family she should have sued the karta in his representative capacity and obtained a decree against the joint family property. As regards this, I have not been referred to any evidence which shows that upon the death of Govind Prasad any one of the brothers managed the joint property as karta. It would seem that there was some informal arrangement by which it was divided between them. It was natural in these circumstances that she should have sued th