JUDGMENT Walsh, J.
1. This is an execution appeal by the decree-holder. The decree is a simple money-debt obtained against Parsotam Das. I do not say that no point of law arises, but I think the law is clear. Two questions are involved. Parsotam Das was a member of a joint Hindu family, but he inherited property independently so that it became his self-acquired property; but both Courts have found that by his consent it passed into the common stock, and, therefore, became part of the joint property. That is a question of fact to be judged upon the conduct of the parties.
2. The second question which arises is whether his interest can be seized and sold by the decree-holder. If he were the father of the family, and were alive, the whole family property could be taken in execution in favour of the debt. If he were living, his right, title and interest could be sold, but he is dead; and when be dies, the other members of the joint family acquire an undivided share in his former interest by survivorship. The right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, which, as the Privy Council points out in the case of Sripat Singh Dugar v. Prodyot Kumar Tagore AIR 1916 PC 220 is what the decree-holder can seize, disappeared when Parsotam Das died. I think therefore that the lower Court was right and that the appeal must be dismissed.