JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— This case is governed by the decision in the case of Lami Narain v. Kunji Lal, [1894] I.L.R., 16 All, 449.. There it was held that a creditor of a father of a joint Hindu family, governed by the law of the Mitakshara, who has obtained a simple money-decree in a suit against the father alone, cannot obtain execution of that decree against the family property or any part of it in the hands of the son in a proceeding against the son in execution of that decree, instituted after the death of the father., and not being a proceeding in continuation of an attachment of the property effected during the lifetime of the father. We find that this ruling was followed by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Juga Lal Chaudhari v. Avadh Behari Prasad Singh, [1901] 6 C.W.N., 223. In that case it was held that the interest of the father in a Mitakshara family in joint ancestral properties is not assets in the hands of the son when he dies, and consequently proceedings cannot be taken against the son as the legal representative of the father under section 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that any proceeding which might be taken against the son to establish his objection to pay his father's debt could not be determined in a proceeding either under section 234 or section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but must be determined by a separate suit. In this case the defendant-respondent, the Maharaja of Benares, obtained two decrees for rent against the father of the plaintiffs-appellants. Before any steps were taken to realize the amount of these decrees, the father died. Subse quently joint family property was attached, and in consequence of this the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought. It is clear from the authorities to which we have referred that the decree-holder was not, under the circumstances, entitled after the death of the father to realise the amount of his decrees out of joint family property which had devolved upon the sons by right of survivorship. The appeal is allowed, the decrees of both the lower Courts are set aside and a declaratory decree is given to the plaintiffs as prayed. The appeal is allowed, the decrees of both the lower Courts are set aside and a declaratory decree is given to the plaintiffs as prayed. The plaintiffs will have their costs of this appeal including fees on the higher scale and also their costs in the Courts below.