ACHUTHA Vs. ACHUTHA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1975, passed by the Civil Judge, Puttur, in RA No. 150 of 1975, on his file, allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree dated 6-11-1973, passed by the Munsiff, Sullia in OS No. 45 of 1972, on bis file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

(2.) The plaintfli is a minor and the suit is instituted on behalf of the minor by his next friend who is his maternal grandfather. Plaintiff and defendants 6 to 9 are the children of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant is the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. 12th defendant is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the undivided Hindu joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7. The 1st defendant, the paternal grandfather of the plaintift was the Karta of the family. There was no need to the family to raise debts. B schedule properties were yielding good income. The 3rd defendant is the father of the plaintift and he was employed as Secretary of the defendant Co-operative Society. He was residing away from the family. He became spend-tbrift and began to lead immoral life. According to the plaint aver- ments he committed misappropriation and forgery with regard to the funds of the Society of which he was the Secretary and in that connection the society obtained awards against him. They were certified as decrees of the Court and they were put in execution and B shedule properties were attached. The mother of the plaintiff put in claim petition before the executing Court which was rejected and subsequently the plaintiff instituted the present suit with a prayer that the share of the present plaintiff could not be attached in execution of the decree obtained against bis father as he was not bound to discharge the debt, the debt having been incurred for an immoral purpose. There was no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to discharge the said debt. He also sought for partition of the plaint B sbedule properties and claimed his shere along with future mesne rofits and other incidental reliefs.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the concerned defendants.