JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree passed so far back as 18th December, 1882. The appellants are two of the sons of Mauladad Khan, transferee of the original decree-holder, Fateh Chand. The respondent, Musammat Rashid-un-nissa, is the daughter of one of the heirs of the deceased judgment-debtor, Sardar Khan. Sardar Khan died in the year 1888. An application for execution was put in by Mauladad Khan on the 23rd of April, 1891. To this application Ulfat-un-nissa, Rashid-un-nissa, the present respondent, and Abdul Majid, were made parties as representatives of Sardar Khan. The mortgaged property was sold on the 20th of February, 1892, and was purchased by Mauladad Khan. Mauladad Khan died in 1895, leaving as his heirs, four sons, two of whom are the appellants before us. On the 21st of April, 1898, Musammat Rashid-un-nissa filed a suit for possession of her share in the property purchased at auction by Mauladad Khan and for setting aside the sale on the ground that she was a minor at the time of the suit and was not properly represented in the suit. The court of first instance gave a decree in her favour in 1899. That decree was reversed by this Court in 1902. Their Lordships of the Privy Council, on the 30th of July, 1909, set aside the decree of this Court and restored that of the court of first instance. On the 22nd of February, 1910, the present appellants filed an application which has given rise to this appeal to execute the decree against Musammat Rashid-un-nissa. In paragraph 13 of their application they stated that the petitioner renewed the former application for execution put in 1891. By this they are understood to mean that they wished to treat this application against Rashid-un-nissa as renewal of their application of 23rd April, 1891. The application was resisted on various grounds in the court below. That court held inter alia that the application was bad for want of a succession certificate, and secondly, that it was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the application before him could not be considered as an application for renewal of the former application of 1891, and that it was in fact an entirely fresh application for execution. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the application before him could not be considered as an application for renewal of the former application of 1891, and that it was in fact an entirely fresh application for execution. We do not think it necessary to go into the question, whether a succession certificate was or was not necessary before the appellants could successfully prosecute these proceedings. We are of opinion that this application for execution fails on another ground, and this renders any consideration of the first plea unnecessary. It is obvious that if this application, namely, that out of which this appeal has arisen, is a new application, it is clearly beyond time and barred. In considering this point it is necessary to see the exact terms in which their Lordships of the Privy Council decreed the appeal of Musammat Rashid-un-nissa. This will be found in Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan, [1909] I.L.R., 31 All., 572, at p. 582. It is there laid down that their Lordships agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant, Musammat Rashid-un-nissa, was never a party to any of these suits in the proper sense of the term. Her sister, Musammat Ulfat-un-nissa, was a married woman, and therefore was disqualified under section 457 of the. Code, from being appointed as guardian of a minor in the suit, and Mauladad's interest was obviously adverse to that of the minor. 2. It follows, therefore, that the execution proceedings taken out in which Musammat Rashid-un-nissa was nominally a party were of no effect as against her, and they cannot in any proper sense of the term be revived as against her. The following cases were mentioned to us in support of the opposite arguments : Moin-ud-din Khan v. Chajju Singh, [1905] 2 A.L.J.R., 276, Rahim Ali Khan v. Phul Chand, [1897] I.L.R., 18 All., 482, Isurree Dassie v. Abdul Khalak[1878] I.L.R., 4 Cal., 415, Khair-un-nissa v. Gauri Shanker[1881] I.L.R., 3 All, 484, and Virasami v. Athi[1884] I.L.R., 7 Mad., 595. But the fact which we have set out above clearly differentiates the present case from those cases. The present execution proceedings are clearly time-barred. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.