1. I am afraid that a view in conflict with that of the District Judge is not possible, _ The District Judge himself admitted that the case was a hard one. A Hindu widow in the capacity of lamhardar recovered certain profits which she ought to have paid to the applicant, She did not do so and was, therefore, sued. In that suit a decree was passed against her. She died during the execution proceedings and the reversioner who was made a party objected that he was not liable under the decree as he was not successor-in-interest of the lady. The argument is quite sound. It is true that in the case of Risal Singh v. Balwant Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 553 : 40 A. 593 : 40 A. 593 : 28 C.L.J. 519 : 24 M.L.T. 361 : 9 L.W. 52 : 23 C.W.N. 326 : (1919) M.W.N. 155 : 36 M.L.J. 597 : 21 Bom. L.R. 511 : 45 I.A. 168 (P.C.), their Lordships held that a reversioner would be bound by a decree passed against a widow, as representing the estate, where the widow had an opportunity of defence and the decree was honest and properly passed. In the present case, however, the decree was passed against the Hindu widow for a personal act of not giving profits to co-sharers whose profits she had collected as lamhardar. She was not representing the estate when she was sued but was representing herself. In her capacity of an office bearer she did not act faithfully and so she was sued. Her liabilities, therefore, cannot be passed on to the reversioner under the principles enunciated by their Lordships in the ruling quoted above. I dismiss this appeal with costs.