Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
1. The appellant is the decree-holder. He obtained a decree against the sons of a Hindu father in respect of a sum due on a promissory note executed by the father and endorsed over to the decree-holder. A decree was passed against the assets of the father now in the hands of his sons. The decree was sought to be executed under Sections 52 and 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was contended by the defendants that the father did not have any separate properties of his own and that the decree cannot be executed against the joint family properties. Under Section 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure the property in the hands of an undivided Hindu son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu Law for the payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor, in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be the property of the deceased which has come to the hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative. The matter was considered in Bhadri Venkatasami v. Mandi Tata Reddi and Anr. : AIR1947Mad162 by a Bench of this Court of which I happened to be a member. It was held that a decree can be passed not only against the separate assets of the father in the hands of his sons but also against the share of the father in the joint family properties obtained by the sons by right of survivorship. This decision is followed by Rajamannar, J., in Krishnamurthi Ayyar v. Kailasam Ayyar in C.R.P. No. 869 of 1945 on the file of this Court since reported : AIR1947Mad355 where he points out the effect of Section 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the claim made against the properties of a Hindu father obtained by right of survivorship by the son on the death of the father and holds that under the section the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the joint family properties of the father obtained by his son by right of survivorship.
2. In these circumstances the order of the lower Court is set aside and the appeal allowed with costs throughout.