John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.
1. Musaminat Janki, who was the widow of a sonless separated Hindu, held some zamindari as his widow. Her status as his widow was her only title to the possession of the zamindari. The lambardar paid her quota of revenue. Musammat Janki died, and thereupon Shiamanand, the appellant here, who was the next reversioner to the widow's deceased husband, became entitled to and took possession of the zamindari. It is needless to say that Shiamanand did not inherit to Musammat Janki, nor did he take title through her. His title was that of reversioner to her late husband. It is also hardly necessary to say that the zamindari in question was not in the hands of Shiamanand assets of Musammat Janki. The lambardar brought his suit against Shiamanand to recover the moneys paid by him in respect of Musammat Janki's quota of land revenue In the first Court he got a decree, the precise terms of which we do not know. The decree was, however, modified by the Lower Appellate Court, which exempted Shiamanand from all personal liability, and decreed the lambardar's claim against the property of Musammat Janki only. The lambardar seeks to execute that decree by sale of the zamindari which has come to Shiamanand. Shiamanand objected that the zamindari (as was the fact) was not assets of Musammat Janki.
2. The Court dismissed his objection. He has brought this appeal. In the case of Chitor Mal v. Shib Lal I.L.R. 14 All. 273, it was held by a majority of the Full Bench that a payment by a lambardar or other third person of the Government revenue of a co-sharer who was in default did not give the person who paid a charge on that co-sharer's share. The result is that, so far as the payment in question is concerned, it must be regarded as a payment of an ordinary debt, which was due by Musamroat Janki. Now there is no pious obligation on a reversioner, such as Shiamanand is, to pay the debts of a Hindu widow. Consequently the reversioner can only be made liable for the debts of a Hindu widow to the extent of such assets as may have come to his hands and have not been lawfully applied by him to the payment of other creditors. The case may be a hard one for the lambardar; but hard cases make bad law, and we cannot help him out of his difficulty by construing the decree which he got as a decree for the sale of the zamindari, a decree which would not have been a lawful one, there being no decree for sale except one passed under the Transfer of Property Act. We must regard the decree as lawfully made, and in that light it was simply an ordinary decree against a representative, to be enforced in respect of such assets of the deceased debtor as he might have. We allow the appeal and the objection of Shiamanand, and dismiss the application for execution with costs in all Courts.