JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - The plaintiff, applicant brought a suit in the Township Court of Mogaung, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 210, being the amount of a debt due to him by a certain man Maung Htun Mya, deceased. The defendants-respondents were sued by him as being the legal representatives of the deceased Maung, Htun Mya. The learned Township Judge who tried the suit entirely misunderstood its nature. There were only two issues for decision. They were, first whether Maung Htun Mya at the time of his death was indebted in this amount to the applicant, and, secondly, whether the three respondents are the legal representatives of Maung Htun Mya. The learned Township Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not-proved that any property of the deceased Maung Htun Mya had come into the. hands of either of the respondents, but this is an entirely irrelevant consideration. A person is entitled to sue the legal representatives of his deceased debtor and to obtain a decree against them without proving that any assets have come into their hands, or even that the deceased debtor left any assets: see Girdharilal Krishnavalabh v. Bai Shiv (1884) 8 Bom. 309 and Lallu Bhagvan v. Tribhuvan Motiram (1889) 13 Bom. 653.

2. The learned Additional District Judge on appeal animadverted upon the document which was the repository of the terms of the loan made by the applicant to Maung Htun Mya. Because this document was not registered he held that (to use his own words) "it is not worth the paper on which it is written." He overlooked the fact that the applicant did not bring a mortgage suit. The document in question might perhaps, on account of lack of registration, be inadmissible to prove the alleged mortgage of certain land, but as proof of the loan it is relevant and extremely cogent evidence. Coupled with the evidence of the applicant, and in the absence of any rebutting evidence on the part of the respondents, it is sufficient to establish that Maung Htun Mya did take this loan from the applicant. In regard to the two real issues which, arise in the suit, it has certainly been established that the amount for which the suit was brought was due by the deceased Htun Mya to the applicant. The question whether the defendants-respondents are the legal representatives of Htun Mya was not dealt with at ail by the learned Township Judge, but the learned Additional District Judge has held that it has not been established that they are the legal representatives of the deceased, How he has come to this conclusion in regard to the third defendant-respondent, who is the widow of the deceased, I cannot conceive. The deceased and the respondents are plainly Burmese Buddhists, and the legal representatives (i.e., the par3on who in law represents the estate of the deceased) of a deceased Burmese Buddhist male is his widow. A decree should undoubtedly have been passed against respondent 3 in her representative capacity. The other two respondents are relatives of the deceased, who, admittedly, are not his heirs. But it is alleged on behalf of the applicant that they are his legal representatives within the meaning of Clause (11), Section 2, Civil P.C., in that they have intermeddled with the estate of the deceased. Now, in order to bring them within the terms of this clause the onus was upon the plaintiff-applicant to establish that they had intermeddled with the estate of the deceased, i.e., with the property belonging to the deceased at the time of his death. It would not suffice to show that they are or have been in possession of property which Maung Htun Mya owned at soma time prior to his death. In regard to respondent 1, Daw Hnin B, tyere is no evidence at all, beyond the bare statement of the applicant, that sue has never been in possession of any property of which Htun Mya was ever ppssessed. Consequently, so far as she is concerned, the fact of her representative character was not established, and the suit against her was rightly dismissed.

3. A