JUDGMENT
1. The High Court decree was against the assets of the deceased in the hands of his son who had been brought on as his legal representative. The term assets’, if not co-extensive with, is at least included in the term ‘property’ and the new Section 53 says that property in the hands of a son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu Law for the payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to have come to the hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative. Unless the debt was incurred for immoral or illegal purposes, the ancestral property of the father which passed by survivorship to the son was by this section to be deemed to be the property of the deceased father which had come to the hands of the son as his legal representative, that is to say, as soon as it got into the son’s hands after the father’s death it became the father’s property for the purposes of Sections 50 and 52. The fact that the son died subsequently and that execution is now sought against his heir and legal representative does not, in our opinion, in any way, affect the operation of Section 53 or make the property in question any less the father’s property for the purposes of Sections 50 and 52. We agree with the learned Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.
