JUDGMENT 1. The substantial question of law, which calls for our decision in this appeal, is whether a decree for mesne profits, obtained by the Appellant against a Hindu widow, may be executed against the estate of her deceased husband, now in the hands of the reversionary heirs. The circumstances, under which the decree was obtained and is sought to be executed, are not the subject of controversy between the parties, and may be briefly narrated. The Appellant before us one Sadasi Koer commenced an action in ejectment on the 5th March 1895 against 88 persons as Defendants. One of these Defendants was Sona Koer, the widow of Talwant Singh. The case for the Plaintiff was, that the Defendants had combined to dispossess her of a large tract of alluvial land about 535 bighas in area. The Specific Act imputed to the Defendant Sona Koer was, that she had sued three of the other Defendants, who were in no way interested in the land, obtained collusive decrees against them, and on the basis thereof, had, in concert with the other Defendants, kept the Plaintiff out of possession. Many of the Defendants resisted the claim; but, so far as we can gather from the record the Defendant Sona Koer did not even enter appearance. The Court of first instance found that the Plaintiff was the proprietor of the disputed land, which had apparently accreted to her estate, and that the Defendants had failed to establish any title by tenancy right or otherwise to any portion thereof. In this view, the Court made a decree for ejectment on the 30th November 1895. Against this decree, the contesting Defendants appealed to the Subordinate Judge; and it is clear, from the record, that Sona Koer neither appealed nor was made a party Respondent to the appeal. On the 16th June 1896, the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was bad for misjoinder of causes of action and parties. The Plaintiff then appealed to this Court; and, on the 24th November 1898, obtained a reversal of the decree of the Subordinate Judge : the case was remanded in order that the appeal might be heard on the merits. After remand, the suit was decreed in confirmation of the decision of the original Court, on the 18th April 1899. The Plaintiff then appealed to this Court; and, on the 24th November 1898, obtained a reversal of the decree of the Subordinate Judge : the case was remanded in order that the appeal might be heard on the merits. After remand, the suit was decreed in confirmation of the decision of the original Court, on the 18th April 1899. It does not appear from the record, when the decree was executed and the Plaintiff placed in possession; but this much is known that in September 1900, the Plaintiff commenced an action for recovery of mesne profits for the three years antecedent to the suit, from 12th September 1897 to the 9th September 1900. This suit was brought against 78 Defendants, and Sona Koer was one of them. The Plaintiff asked for a joint decree against all the Defendants, on the ground upon which the suit for possession was based, namely, that the Defendants had conspired to keep her out of possession of her property. This suit was decreed on the 30th July 1901, and the Defendants were made liable for mesne profits and costs. The Plaintiff now seeks execution of this decree, and as Sona Koer has meanwhile died, she applies for execution against the reversionary heirs to the estate of her husband. No reason has been assigned why these representatives of one judgment-debtor should be singled out in this manner; but the decree-holder contends that the judgment-debtors are jointly and severally liable for the whole of the judgment-debt. The property against which the decree-holder seeks to proceed, admittedly formed part of the estate of Talwant Singh and is in the possession of the reversionary heirs who object to the execution on the ground that the estate of Talwant Singh, now in their hands, is not liable for the satisfaction of the decree obtained by Sadasi Koer against Sona Koer. The Courts below have concurrently given effect to this contention, and have dismissed the application for execution. The sole question in controversy between the decree-holder Appellant and the representatives of Talwant Singh as Respondent is, whether the decree is capable of execution against the estate of the latter. 2. The Courts below have concurrently given effect to this contention, and have dismissed the application for execution. The sole question in controversy between the decree-holder Appellant and the representatives of Talwant Singh as Respondent is, whether the decree is capable of execution against the estate of the latter. 2. In support of the appeal, the learned Vakil for the decree-holder has contended that as Sona Koer dispossessed the Plaintiff in her character as the widow of Taiwant Singh the decree though obtained against her, is binding upon the estate of her husband. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed upon the cases of Ram Kishore v. Kali Kanta I. L. R. 6 Cal. 479 (1880), Premmoyee v. Preonath I. L. R. 23 Cal. 636 (1896), Krishna Kissore v. Sukha Sindhu 10 C. W. N. 1000 (1906) and Lalji Sahay v. Goberdhone Jha. It has been argued, on the other hand, by the learned Vakil for the Respondents that the decree for mesne profits and costs was a personal decree against Sona Koer, that the estate of her husband could not be held liable for her wrongful acts, and that she could not be permitted to impose upon the estate in her hands a liability in this indirect manner. In our opinion, the view taken by the Courts below is unquestionably sound and must be affirmed. The judicial decisions upon which reliance has been placed on behalf of the Appellant do not support the comprehensive proposition, that a Hindu widow in possession of the estate of her husband, is entitled to commit an act of trespass and thereby impose a liability on the estate which would be operative against it when it passed into the hands of the reversionary heirs. The principle applicable.