Macpherson and Hill, JJ.
1. We think both the lower Courts are wrong in holding that the provisions of Section 78 of Bengal Act VII of 1876 place any obstacle in the present plaintiff's way.
2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff as proprietor of an estate to recover the putni rent which was due to him as proprietor. He died during the pendency of the suit, and his widow was substituted in his place. According to the plaintiff the substitution was as widow and heiress; according to the District Judge's, judgment, it was as executrix under her husband's will.
3. We do not think it makes much difference in what capacity she was substituted. Both the Courts have held that the substituted plaintiff's, name not being registered under the provisions of Act VII, to which we have referred, the present suit cannot proceed at her instance.
4. In our opinion it cannot be said that the substituted plaintiff is claiming rent which is due to her as proprietor of the estate. She is claiming money which was payable by defendant to the person who was the proprietor up to the time of his death, and she is claiming it in a representative character. Section 78 of Bengal Act VII of 1876 was not intended to and does not cover a claim of this description.
5. This point was raised and decided in the case of Belchambers v. Hussan Alli Mirza (1898) 2 C.W.N., 493. I certainly see no reason to change the, opinion that I then formed of the operation of that section.
6. We set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, and the parties agree that there should be a decree according to the terms set out in the Munsif's judgment. The decree will be drawn up accordingly, and the appellant will be entitled to costs in all the Courts.