1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside proceedings inexecution of a decree for money, which have been taken under circumstances of asomewhat exceptional character. On the 18th February 1909, Pelaram Mondal, theOpposite Party in this Rule, obtained a decree for mesne profits againstSurendra Nath Ray whom he described as the infant adopted son of Panchanon Ray.His claim was against Punchanon Ray; but before he could commence his suit,Punchanon died. He accordingly sued the alleged infant adopted son representedby Ashi Bhusan Dasi as mother and guardian ad litem, and obtained a decree.Before execution could be taken on the basis of this decree, in another suittried by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it was declared that the infant hadnot been validly adopted. The decree-holder, however, proceeded to attachproperties which formed part of the estate of Punchanon Ray. Objection was thereupontaken by Ashi Bhusan Dasi, who claimed to be in possession as the widow ofPunchanon Ray. The objection was allowed, and there is no room for controversythat it was allowed very properly. The decree-holder then proceeded to make anapplication that Ashi Bhusan Dasi might be substituted in place of SurendraNath Ray in the decree, and that execution might proceed against her. The orderwas made ex parte, and in proceedings in execution the properties in the handsof Ashi Bhusan Dasi have been sold and purchased by the decree-holder himself.In our opinion, these proceedings are entirely without jurisdiction and must beset aside. The decree was obtained against Surendra Nath Ray as therepresentative of Punchanon Ray, and could be executed against him to theextent of the assets in his hands. Admittedly there are no assets in his hands,because he is not the adopted son of Punchanon Ray. The decree holder has notgot any decree against Ashi Bhusan Dasi and he is not entitled to ask that hername be substituted in the place of Surendra Nath Ray. If we were to giveeffect to the contention of the decree-holder, the result would be really a newdecree in his favour against Ashi Bhusan Dasi. But it has been argued that sheis bound by the decree against Surendra Nath Ray, the alleged adopted son,because she acted as his guardian ad litem. It is plain, however, that she isin no way bound by the decree made against Surendra Nath Ray [Mohunt Das v. NilKomul Dewan 4 C. W. N. 283 (1899) and Joy Chandra Banerjee v. SreenathChatterjee I. L. R. 32 Cal. 357 (1904)]. The remedy of the decree-holder maypossibly be by way of a suit against Ashi Bhusan Dasi, if it be still open tohim to sue her successfully, in view of the provisions of the statute oflimitation; but it is clear that it is not competent to him to execute thedecree against Ashi Bhusan Dasi. The result is that this Rule is made absoluteand the order of the Court below set aside. The sale will stand cancelled. ThePetitioner is entitled to his costs of this Rule. We assess the hearing-fee atone gold mohur.

.

Ashi Bhusan Dasi vs.Pelaram Mondol (23.05.1913 - CALHC)