JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. In our judgment this appeal must prevail. The question is, whether the application made by the respondent on the 9th of April, 1904, for execution of a decree under section 88 of Act IV of 1882, passed on the 6th of February, 1891, was time-barred or not. The decree was obtained by Baijnath, the grandfather of the respondent, who also obtained an order absolute for sale on the 21st of March, 1896. He died on the nth of December, 1897, leaving the respondent who was then a minor as his heir and legal representative, The respondent attained majority in 1903. It is manifest that the application of the 9th of April, 1904, would be beyond time, unless the operation of limitation was saved by the provisions of section 7 of the Limitation Act. That section provides, that if a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application be, at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned, a minor he may institute the suit or make the application after attaining majority within the same period as would have otherwise been allowed for the suit or application. 2. It is clear that the person, whose minority would save the operation of limitation must be the person who was entitled to bring the suit or make, the application, on the date from which the period of limitation for the particular suit or application was to be reckoned. In this case, it is conceded that limitation should be reckoned from the 21st of March, 1896, the date of the order absolute for sale. The person, who was entitled to make the application for execution on that date, was Baijnath, who was not a minor. Consequently the present respondent could not avail himself of the benefit of section 7. The learned Subordi nate Judge holds that as Baijnath and the respondent Ram Nath were members of a joint Hindu family. Ram Nath was interested in the decree and was therefore competent to take out execution, In this view the learned Subordinate Judge is in our opinion in error, The decree being in favour of Baijnath, he alone could take out execution of it; and during his life-time Ram Nath could not have applied for execution. Ram Nath was interested in the decree and was therefore competent to take out execution, In this view the learned Subordinate Judge is in our opinion in error, The decree being in favour of Baijnath, he alone could take out execution of it; and during his life-time Ram Nath could not have applied for execution. This is not disputed by the learned Vakil for the respondent, Consequently as limitation began to run against Biijnath, and he was the person who, at the time from which limitation had to be reckoned, was the only person entitled to take out execution of the decree, the disability of the respondent, his legal representative, cannot save the operation of limitation, In this view we are supported by the ruling of this Court in Luchman Prasad v. Bhagwan Singh, [1886] 6 A.W.N., 49. We allow the appeal, and setting aside the order of the court below, restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.