JUDGMENT : Knox, J. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal. It arises out of a suit in which the respondent, Musammat Kesar Kuar, sued Thukurain Ganga Kuar, the appellant, and Lal Umrao Singh, upon the basis of a promissory note, which had been executed by Musammat Ganga Kuar. Lal Umrao Singh was the adopted son of Ganga Kuar's husband and was impleaded with a view to make his property liable on the ground that the consideration of a promissory note had been taken for his benefit. Thakurain Ganga Kuar confessed judgment. Lal Umrao Singh resisted the plaintiff's claim. The court of first instance, on the 13th of May, 1899, gave a decree against both defendants. Lal Umrao Singh alone appealed and made Musammat Kesar Kuar the sole respondent. On the 10th of March, 1900, the claim as against Lal Umrao Singh was dismissed. On the 3rd of September, 1902, the decree-holder sued out execution of the decree she had obtained against Thakurain Ganga Kuar. Thakurain Ganga Kuar pleaded that the claim as against her was barred by limitation. 2. The Court of first instance sustained her objection, but on appeal the order of the first Court was reversed by the learned District Judge of Aligarh. In appeal before us the plea taken is that Musammat Kesar Kuar's application for execution is barred. The case has been very ably argued by the learned Vakils. We have been referred to numerous authorities. Those authorities make it clear that there is considerable conflict of opinion upon the question raised. In our opinion, however, the question so far as this Court is concerned, is decided by the Full Bench ruling in Mashiat-un-nissa v. Rani, [1891] I.L R., 13 All., 10. The opinion of the majority of the Court in that case is, in our judgment, conclusive of the matter before us, and it is conclusive in favour of the appellant. We allow the appeal, and setting aside the order of the lower appellate Court, restore that of the Court of first instance. The appellant will have her costs in this Court.