JUDGMENT 1. The facts of this case are as follows :-- Khanto Moyi, the widow of one Kenaram Roy, executed in favour of the Defendant a bond for Rs. 99 for legal necessity. It has been found by the lower Courts that she was in straitened circumstances, and that she had not sufficient funds for her maintenance and that of her family. The Plaintiff Giribala is Khanto Moyi's daughter. She signed her mother Khanto Moyi's name on the bond. Her husband Ambika Charan Ghose was a subscribing witness to it. The Defendant subsequently sued on the bond, but Khanto Moyi denied execution and the Plaintiff and her husband supported her. But the bond was found to be genuine and the Defendant obtained a decree. He then executed his decree against the property left by Kenaram, bought it himself, and is now In possession. Khanto Moyi being dead, the Plaintiff now sues as the reversionary heir of Kenaram for possession of 18 bighas 19 cottahs of land at present in the Defendants' possession. The lower Courts have dismissed her suit holding that there was legal necessity for the bond. The Plaintiff appeals. It is urged on her behalf that the bond was a simple bond, not a mortgage bond, far less a deed for sale, that the decree obtained by the Defendant against Khanto Moyi was a personal decree and did not affect Kenaram's property and that she was no party to the suit or the sale proceedings and is therefore not bound by them. 2. We consider these pleas must prevail. We come to this conclusion with reluctance, for it is obvious that the Plaintiff and her husband Ambika Charan Ghose did all they could to induce the Defendant to accept the bond of Rs. 99 from Khanto Moyi and to assure him that they would not dispute it. But it was not a mortgage bond or deed of sale; so the signature of the name of Khanto Moyi by the Plaintiff does not bind her reversioner. Similarly, the signature of Plaintiffs husband Ambika as a witness is of no avail. The Plaintiff and her husband did all they could to deny execution of the bond. It is to be regretted that advantage was not taken of the sanction accorded by the Munsif to prosecute Ambika for perjury. Similarly, the signature of Plaintiffs husband Ambika as a witness is of no avail. The Plaintiff and her husband did all they could to deny execution of the bond. It is to be regretted that advantage was not taken of the sanction accorded by the Munsif to prosecute Ambika for perjury. Then, the decree given against Khanto Moyi appears from the judgment filed to have been a personal decree against her. It did not affect Kenaram's property, or the Plaintiff who was no party to it. It affected only Khanto Moyi's personal Interest in the property--which Is now at an end [Baijun Doobey v. Brij Bhukun ILR 1 Cal. 188(1875)]. The Plaintiff, according to Hindu Law, is entitled to a decree, and must get it. We decree this appeal with all costs.