JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - The question involved in this Second Appeal by the Plaintiff is whether he can sue on a pronote held in the name of his wife Benami, after her death without impleading his own daughter who was said to have been alive and who would have been the heir alongwith him if the debt due on the pronote had been the property of the wife. 2. The lower appellate court found that the pronote was held by the Plaintiff in the name of his wife that the wife was Benamidar and the debt due on the pronote was in fact, due to the Plaintiff. The lower appellate court following the case of Sewa Ram v. Moti Lal AIR 1931 All 5, held that the Plaintiff could sue on the pronote provided he made the Benamidar a party to the suit. When the suit was filed she could not obviously be made a party. Assuming that all her heirs should have been made a party the lower appellate court proceeded to hold that if the wife left the daughter Smt. Naurangi, it was for the Plaintiff to have conclusively proved that his wife did not leave her surviving any heir other than himself and on this basis it maintained the dismissal of the suit for recovery of the amount due on the pronote held by the Plaintiff in the name of his wife. 3. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant urged before me that the view adopted by the lower appellate court is erroneous in law on the face of it. The debt due on the promissory note was found to be a debt due to the Plaintiff. The property in the promissory note thus belonged to the Plaintiff and nothing could be said to have passed on the death of the Plaintiff's wife which might have been inherited by him along with the daughter alleged to have been living. On the finding that the debt due on the promissory note belonged to the Plaintiff, there could be no heir to the Plaintiff's wife in respect of the debt due on that promissory note. 4. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The decree under appeal is modified and the suit is decreed for recovery of the amount due on the promissory note Exts. 4. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The decree under appeal is modified and the suit is decreed for recovery of the amount due on the promissory note Exts. 3 and 4 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. The Plaintiff-Appellant shall be entitled to his costs of the entire suit in the two courts below but there will be no order as to costs in this Court as the Defendant-Respondent was unrepresented.