JUDGMENT 1. The decree sought to be executed was passed against Rajai Gangamamba personally and there is nothing in the decree to indicate that she was sued as representing the mahal estate for a debt alleged to be due by that estate. The decision in Manika Vasaka Desikar v. Balagopalakrishna Chetty 16 M.L.J. 415 : 29 M. 553 and other decisions cited by Mr. C.S. Venkatachariar are, therefore, not in point. 2. That Gangamambas right in the mahal was not an absolute right, that it was not higher than a life-estate (if it amounted to even so much) and that the estate was not inherited by the 1st respondent as Gangamambas heir seem not to have been disputed in the lower Court. 3. The District Judge was, therefore, right in refusing execution after Gangamambas death against lands belonging to the said estate and against moneys which evidently accrued due to that estate after Gangamambas death. 4. We, therefore, dismiss this Appeal and the connected Appeal against Order No. 10 of 1915 with costs.