1. We are of opinion that this case should have been decided in favour of plaintiff, although the deceased debtor may have left no assets. As remarked in Bapuji v. Umedhbhai, a decree ought to have been made against defendants as representatives of their father, whether they had inherited any property or not. If they had had no property, the only result would have been that the decree could not have been executed against them. For these reasons, we reverse the decree of the Small Cause Court, and decree for the amount claimed, against the defendants as legal representatives, to be paid out of the property of deceased Defendants to pay costs in the suit.