LUHAR AMRIT LAL NAGJI Vs. DOSHI JAYANTILAL JETHALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises an interesting question of Hindu Law. If a Hindu son wants to challenge an alienation made by his father to pay his antecedent debt is it necessary for him to prove not only that the said antecedent debt was immoral but also that the alienee had notice of the immoral character of the said debt The High Court has held that the son must prove both the immoral character of the debt and notice of it to the alienee; the correctness of that view is challenged before us by the appellants in the present appeal.

(2.) The appellants are two brothers Amritlal and Mohanlal Nagji and their mother Bai Jakal Arjan. The three appellants and respondent 2 Nagji Govind, the father of appellants 1 and 2 and the husband of appellant 3, constitute an undivided Hindu family. Respondent 2 executed a mortgage-deed in favour of respondent 1 Jayantilal Doshi in respect of the joint family property for Rs. 2,000. This document was executed on February 5, 1946. In 1950, respondent 1 sued respondent 2 on his mortgage, obtained a decree for sale and filed an application for execution for sale of the mortgaged property. Sale was accordingly ordered to be held. At that stage the appellants filed the present suit on April 30, 1951, and claimed a declaration that the decree passed in the mortgage suit (Civil Suit No. 589 of 1949) in favour of respondent 1 and against respondent 2 was not binding in respect of the 3/4 the share of the appellants in the mortgaged property; they also asked for a perpetual injunction restraining respondent 1 from executing the said decree in respect of their share. To this suit the mortgagor respondent 2 was impleaded as a party.

(3.) In their plaint the appellants have stated that respondent 2 had speculated in gold and silver and had thereby lost a large amount of money which he sought to make up by borrowing amounts from several creditors. One of such creditors was Dharsi Shamji to whom Rs. 2,000 were payable by respondent 2. According to the appellants the impugned mortgage had been executed by respondent 2 for the payment of the said debt of Rs. 2,000, and since the said debt was immoral or avyavaharik the appellants were not bound by it.