John Edge, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiff in this case advanced moneys to the widow of a separated Hindu, partly to defray the expenses of the marriage of her grand-daughter, partly for agricultural purposes and to some small extent for the payment of Government revenue. It is found by the Court below that the Hindu widow could and ought to have paid out of her own money the expenses of the marriage of her grand-daughter. Our judgment, however, does not turn upon that finding. The defendants to the suit are the reversioners, who have succeeded to the possession of the ancestral property on the death of the widow. The widow gave no mortgage and executed no document which created a charge on the ancestral property in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended that the advance made by him to the Hindu widow of money for agricultural purposes, and for the payment of Government revenue, was an advance made for such necessary purposes as would have enabled the Hindu widow to have made a mortgage of the ancestral property, which would not have been limited to her own interest, and on behalf of the plaintiff the decision in Ramcoomar Mitter v. Ichamoyi Dasi I.L.R. 6 Cal. 36, was relied on. If the decision in that case is good law, the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree. On the other side the decision in Ramasami Mudaliar v. Sellattammal I.L.R. 4 Mad. 375, and the decision of this Court in Shiamanand v. Har Lal I.L.R. 18 All. 471, have been relied on.
2. It appears to us that the case presents no difficulty. The plaintiff, if he had chosen, could, before lending his money, have obtained from the Hindu widow the security of the ancestral property by obtaining a mortgage. He did not choose to demand a mortgage before advancing his money; he accepted - the personal liability of the widow. He now seeks to get a decree under which he can bring to sale the ancestral property in the hands of the reversioners. He seeks a decree which would bind that property. In other words, he is seeking a decree in this suit, there being no assets of the widow in the hands of the reversioners, which he could only have obtained if he had had a valid charge on the ancestral property. The plain answer to his suit is that the plaintiff lent his money on the personal liability of the widow, and, the defendants reversioners having no assets of the widow in their hands, the plaintiff cannot get a decree against them. We dismiss this appeal with costs.