BHAJU RAM PANDIT Vs. RAMJI SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal against the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for the recovery of Rs. 1815 on the basis of a simple mortgage. The suit was dismissed by both the courts on the ground that the debt was not incurred for legal necessity. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties I think that the suit should have been decreed.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the money was borrowed for the purpose of converting the kucha residential house of the Defendant into a pucca building. Both the courts have held that a debt incurred for meeting the expenses for converting a kucha house into pucca is not for legal necessity. They applied the law governing the alienations of a Hindu widow and held that the necessity for justifying an alienation of property by the father must be of a type entailing a certain degree of pressure on the estate which the law will recognise as serious and sufficient. They took the view that there was no urgent necessity for making the house pucca because the defendants' needs would have been satisfied by repairing it. I am satisfied that the courts below have misunderstood and misapplied the law governing the obligations of the sons to pay the debts of their father. The law is summarised by D.F. Mulla in his principles of Hindu Law as follows:

(3.) IN the case of a debt incurred by the father and secured by a mortgage the law is stated by Mulla as follows: