1. The plaintiff in this case seeks to recover the loss lie alleges he has sustained by acting on certain misrepresentations made by the defendant. The allegations in the plaint clearly amount to this that he has suffered injury in his personal estate, and, this being so, the case of Twycross v. Grant 4 C.P.D. 40 : 48 L.J. C.P. 1 : 39 L.T. 616 : 27 W.R. 87 shows that in England, under the liberal construction put upon the Statute of 4 Edw. 3, the cause of action survives to the executor or administrator and that such representative is entitled to come in and continue a suit of this nature pending at the time of his death. There is no reason for refusing to extend the benefit of the Statute of 4 Edw. 3 and the liberal construction put upon it to the City of Madras, and, in my opinion, it must be held that such a cause of action survives equally here. It is objected, however, that under that Statute it survives only to the executor. It is well settled in England, as pointed out in the case referred to, that administrators are also within the equity of the Statute and in applying it here we must take account of the fact that among Hindus, such as the plaintiff, the heir of the deceased is his legal representative without taking out Probate or Letters of Administration. Once the principle is established that such a cause of action survives, we are, I think, bound to give the Hindu heir the benefit of it. Such an extension is very similar to the extension accorded in former times under what was known as the equity of the Statute and appears to be well within our powers, sitting here to administer justice, equity and good conscience. I rule the suit does not abate.