Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.
1. The point . on which this' suit has been decided by the lower appellate Court in the plaintiff's favour may fairly be called one of first impression, and this will be apparent when it is seen what it really involves. By the suit it is prayed that the Court will pass an order directing that the execution of the decree passed in Suit No. 1157 of 1899 may be taken out against defendant No. 1 who is the real judgment-debtor in that decree by substituting his name in the place of defendant No. 2 who is but a nominal judgment-debtor therein, on establishment of the fact that it is the defendant No. 1 who is wholly responsible for the amount due under that decree, and, a declaration was also sought by way of a prelude to this relief. The circumstances which induced the plaintiff to launch this claim are briefly these: The plaintiff is a proprietor who brought a rent suit against his recorded tenant with the result that in execution of the decree passed in his favour the tenure was bought in the name of the present defendant No. 2. Subsequently the plaintiff brought a rent suit against the second defendant and obtained a decree, in execution of which the tenure was sold and bought by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 50, which on the facts stated to us would appear to be a trifling amount in comparison to the apparent value of the tenure. The plaintiffs then learnt that defendant No. 2 was a benamidar for her husband defendant No. 1, and it is under these circumstances that the present claim is brought. The learned Munsif considered that this claim could not be maintained, and he has expressed his view in these terms, ''I do not find any authority or law, by which I can make defendant No. 1 liable for the decretal amount of a decree to which he was not a party at all.' I think there could not be a more succinct or satisfactory statement of the real objection to this claim.
2. I think the view of the learned Munsif was correct and the decree of reversal of the lower appellate Court was erroneous. Therefore, we must allow this appeal from the decree which affirmed that of the lower appellate Court and restore the decree of the Munsif with costs throughout.
3. I agree.