JAYANTILAL PRANLAL THAKORE DR Vs. SHRIKANT JASVANTLAL THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 27 600 which consisted of the principal amount of Rs. 15 0 and the interest amount of Rs. 12 600 from 23 February 1966 to 23rd February 1975. The principal amount was advanced by the plaintiff to Jaswantlal the father of the defendants who was carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of Central Sales Corporation. One Sadashiv and another Manubhai were the other partners of that firm. On 23rd February 1966 the plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs. 15 0 with the firm. At that time Jaswantlal the father of the defendants and the defendants who are his sons were joint. On 10th October 1967 partition of the joint family estate was effected between Jaswantlal on the one hand and his two sons on the other hand. Thereafter Insolvency Petition No. 15 of 1968 was filed against the Central Sales Corporation and its partners who included Jaswantlal the father of the defendants. On 7th August 1970 the firm and its partners were ad judged insolvents. Official Receiver was appointed to collect the assets of the insolvents. On 24th April 1972 the plaintiff demanded from the Official Receiver the payment of his dues. He received no reply from him. Prior thereto on 5th February 1971 insolvent Jaswantlal had taken out a notice of motion for being discharged. On 27th July 1973 his notice of motion was dismissed. The effect of the order was that he was not discharged. On 23rd February 1973 the plaintiff served notice upon the defendants who are the sons of Jaswantlal and instituted the present suit against them on 7th March 1973.

(2.) In defence the defendants denied their liability in respect of the amount claimed from them. They also pleaded that there was no pious obligation which required them to discharge the debt incurred by their father.

(3.) The learned trial Judge after having raised the necessary issues recorded the finding that the plaintiff has proved the debt. He also recorded the finding that the defendants are liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff only because they are the sons of Jaswantlal. While recording that conclusion he pressed into service the doctrine of pious obligation of the sons to discharge their fathers debt. However he held that in absence of Jaswantlal who had borrowed the suit amount from the plaintiff the suit was not maintainable. He therefore dismissed the suit.