AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Judge is in error in stating that the defendant was sued only as legal representative of the deceased. He was in fact sued as the heir and
possessor of the assets of the deceased. It having been proved in the suit that the defendant had received sufficient assets to meet the plaint debt,
the Court of First Instance was justified in passing a personal decree against him in the suit for that debt, and it was not necessary to wait for
execution proceedings to determine the extent of the defendant''s personal liability as contemplated in Section 252 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The ease of Magaluri Garudiah v. Narayana Rungiah ILR 3 Mad. 359 is in point rather than the case of Janaki v. Dhanu Lall ILR 14 Mad. 454
quoted by the Judge. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif. The defendant
(respondent) must pay the plaintiff''s costs in this and the lower Appellate Court. This disposes of the memorandum of objections which is simply
dismissed.