1. On the findings of the Court below there should have been an ex parte decree against Musammat Janki, widow of Baldeo, for the sum claimed, with costs, such decree to be recoverable only against any self acquired property of the deceased, Baldeo, which might be found in the possession of the widow. The lower Court was quite entitled on the pleadings to try an issue whether Baldeo had died joint or separate from his brothers Chunni, Gokal and Bachchu; and having come to the finding that, at the time of Baldeo's death, the four brothers were members of a joint undivided Hindu family, it has rightly held that the joint family property, whatever it might be, in the hands of the remaining brothers by survivorship could not be liable for a debt incurred by Baldeo, in the absence of any evidence that it was incurred on behalf of the joint family or for the benefit of that family. I doubt whether the modification of the decree of the Court below, to which I think the plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law, will be of any particular benefit to him. The object of this application seems to have been to obtain a decree against the brothers. However, as the matter has been taken up in revision by this Court, and as the decree of the Court below appears open to objection on this point, I am prepared to modify it. The suit will, therefore, stand dismissed as against the defendants Chunni, Gokal and Bachchu, with costs both here and in the Court below. It will be decreed, with costs in the Court below, as against the defendant Musammat Janki, with this proviso, that the amount of the decree will be recoverable only from any self-acquired property of the deceased Baldeo which may be in the possession of this judgment-debtor.