Saminatha Asarl vs G. Gopalakrishna Aiyengar on 9 August, 1916

JUDGMENT

1. We cannot agree with the lower Appellate Court’s conclusion that the application by the widow enured for the benefit of the adopted son, the present petitioner. For the cases they have relied on relate either to the representation of the real judgment-debtor by some other person or to the representation of the decree-holder by a person not claiming hostilely against him, as the widow was against petitioner. The authorities in question being irrelevant, we have not been shown any other ground on which the widow can be treated as the representative of the petitioner to the prejudice of the judgment debtor. We allow the appeal, set aside the lower Court’s decision and dismiss the execution petition with costs throughout.