JUDGMENT
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.
1. In this case one Musammat Lakhpati brought a suit for possession against certain persons who, she alleged, had taken possession of her father’s estate. She succeeded in establishing her case and getting a decree for possession. Before, however, the decree for possession could be executed she died, and thereupon her sons applied for execution, but their application was rejected by the court of first instance. On appeal, this decision was reversed and the application of the appellants was allowed. In second appeal, a learned Judge of this Court held that the decision of the court of first instance was correct and ought to be restored. Hence the present appeal.
2. In our opinion, the decree of the lower appellate court was correct. Musammat Lakhpati undoubtedly represented her father’s estate when she brought the suit, and the persons who succeeded to the estate are entitled to execute the decree which she obtained. Otherwise the reversioners would be obliged to institute a fresh suit and to litigate again the same matters against the very same persons against whom Musammat Lakhpati had established her case. In principle the matter is governed by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council when they decided that, for general purposes, the widow represents the estate. We can, in the present case, make no distinction between a widow in possession of her deceased husband’s estate and a daughter in possession of her deceased father’s estate. We allow the appeal set aside the decree of the learned Judge of this Court and, restore the decree of the lower appellate court with costs in all courts.
