Richard Garth, C.J.
1. In this case the plaintiff claims a three-sixteenth share in a dwelling-house at Sealdah, one half of which is admitted to have belonged to the late Bulzloor Rohim, who died in 1871.
2. Buzloor Rohiin, in his lifetime, had employed Anderson, Wallace, & Co., in Calcutta, to do some repairs to the house; after his death his daughter Surfurunnissa Begum, who was entitled to five-sixteenths of the whole property, employed them to do further repairs. The price of these repairs not having been paid, Anderson, Wallace, & Co. brought an action against Surfurunmssa Begum, as representing her father's estate, to recover the sum due to them; and having obtained a decree, the house was sold in execution under the decree, and was purchased by the defendants Hendry and Hubbard, Meanwhile, a sister of Buzloor Rolum, Sadumnnissa Bibi, who had been for some time past on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and who was entitled to a three-sixteenth share of the property, returned, and she sold her interest to the plaintiff, who brings this suit to establish his right, insisting that the three-sixteenths which he purchased could not legally be sold, and were not in fact sold to Hendry and Hubbard under the decree.
3. The defendants contend that Surfurunnissa Begum represented the whole estate of Buzloor Rohim, and that, therefore, his sister's share was liable for the repairs and was properly sold under the execution. The learned Judge in the Court below has found that Surfurunnissa Begum was not legally authorized to represent the whole estate of her father, and that, consequently, the decree and the execution sale which took place under it only affected her five-sixteenths of the property.
4. Under those circumstances the throe-sixteenth share which belonged to Sadumnnissa Bibi being duly conveyed to the plaintiff, became his property, and the learned Judge in the Court below was, in our opinion, perfectly right in making a decree in his favour.
5. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.