NIDAVOLU ATCHUTAM ALIAS ATCHUTARAMAYYA Vs. RATNAJI, RATNAJEE BHOOTAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Justice: In this case the father of the appellants embarked on hardware trade in 1914 and was sued along with them in respect of debts contracted 22nd October, 1925by him in the conduct of that venture. The appellants vakil relied on a text of Gautama XII. 41, which runs as follows:

(2.) Of course the whole of the pious obligation is itself a relic of antiquity based originally on a religious and not a legal conception but it has been controlled and moulded into shape by a series of decisions which, in my opinion, make it a working rule which in its actual application is neither inconvenient nor unjust.

(3.) Appeal by defendants 3 to 5 against the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, in O.S. No. 25 of 1920.