1. In Ramasami Mudaliar v. Sellathammall 4 M. 375, the case by which the District Judge holds himself bound, Innes, J., no doubt, held that the reversioners will not be bound to pay a debt contracted by widow unless the debt is charged on the estate. Kindersley, J., however, took a different view holding that the plaint did not allege clearly that the promissory note was made by the widow as representative of the estate, and did not allege such a state of facts as would by operation of Hindu Law render the debt due on the promissory note binding on the reversioners.
2. Neither Kindersley, J. nor Turner, C.J., who rejected the plaint in the original Court, took the view that, as a matter of law, the reversioners cannot be bound unless the debt is formally made a charge on the estate, and there is no other authority in this Court for that view except the opinion of Innes, J.
3. In our opinion no distinction can be properly drawn between the case where a charge is formally created and the case in which the creditor lends for the necessary purposes of the estate to the widow as representative of the estate. In such a case though there is no formal charge upon the property forming the estate, the debt is a debt due by the representatives of the estate and recoverable from them. This seems to be the view of Turner, C.J. and Kindersley, J.
4. In the case before us, the question whether the debts were borrowed by the widow as representative of the estate and for purposes binding on the reversioners, and the, question whether the creditors looked only to the personal credit of the widow or to her as representative of the estate on the credit of the estate, have not been decided.
5. We, accordingly, reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for decision according to law in accordance with the above observation. Costs will abide the result. It will be open to the District Judge to remand the case to the Court of first instance or take evidence himself as he deems necessary.