1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore, dated the 1st of September, 1908. The learned vakil who appears for Musammat Nanhe, who is represented by her certificated guardian Puran, contends that on the findings of the lower Court the decree ought to have been passed against the persons who were found to have executed the rukka in question, those persons being Puran and Peare Lal. He asks, therefore, that the decree should be passed against Puran in his private capacity. I think his contention is sound. In the connected Civil Revision No. 13 of 1909 the plaintiff in the suit, Doulat Ram, asks that the decree should be passed in the names of Peare Lal, and Puran in his private capacity. I think this contention is also sound on the findings. The rukka does not purport to have been executed by Musammat Nan-he's certificated guardian as such. The lower court had, in my opinion, no right to go behind ho face of the rukka to ascertain how the money obtained on it was used which is what it has done. That is a matter for Puran and his ward to settle. The effect of my judgment will, therefore, be that the decree of the lower Court is sot aside and a decree is passed for the amount in question against both Peare Lal and the man Puran in his private capacity. The parties will bear their own costs.