Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
1. The father of the respondents having been sued by the appellant for her maintenance, entered into a compromise with her, whereby he agreed to pay her the sum of Rs. 36 on the 1st April in each year during her life, and a decree was passed in those terms.
2. It may be the father was sued because he was the manager of the family property; but this is not apparent on the face of the decree.
3. The decree can be executed against the sons for arrears, which have accrued since their father's death, only as representatives of their father and until his assets are exhausted, it being of course understood that, on the father's death, the interest he had in his lifetime in joint ancestral property lapsed, and would not be available as assets. We set aside the order of the Judge and direct him to reconsider the application in reference to the above observations.
4. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal.