TMI Blog1930 (9) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is liable to the extent of the assets of Mt. Rukmabai in the hands of the respondent. 3. As regards the question whether the respondent was major, it is not open to argument in second appeal. I therefore confirm this finding of fact. In reality this point does not arise for decision because I find from the body of the promissory note that the respondent's name was net inserted as a contracting party. She was only called upon to sign a document which evidenced a contract between Mt. Rukmabai, her mother and the plaintiff. She is obviously therefore not bound by the contract in her personal capacity. 4. As to the next question, viz., whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a decree against the assets of Mt. Rukmabai in pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t apply in this case, inasmuch as there was no issue framed. The plaintiff's pleader desired the Court to reserve this contention to be determined in execution. 7. It does not appear that the Civil Procedure Code contemplates determination of the question as to whether the legal representative has or has not the assets in his possession in the course of the suit. Section 2, Sub-section (11), Civil P.C., defines legal representative as: a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character i the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. 8. Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appear however that Ashworth, J., was influenced by the rule of English law in this respect. In view of Section 52, Civil P.C., it appears to me clear, as observed by Mr. Mulla, p. 181, Edn. 9 of 1930, that the plea is confined to execution only: see also Shankarlal v. Ganesh Singh A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 170 and Rajaram v. Nathu [1929] 120 I.C. 333. 9. It is contended for the respondent that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief asked for in second appeal. I do not see any reason why he should not be entitled to this relief. Order 7, Rule 7, Civil P.C., states: Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
