AJODHIA PRASAD Vs. NANHAK RAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Plaintiff's appeal from a decree dismissing his suit for a declaration that the property specified in the plaint is the property of the Plaintiff and Defendants second set, that Defendants first set had not acquired any right in that property by means of the sale dated 20-8-1943 and that the sale dated 20-8-1943 was null and void. The Plaintiff and Defendants second set were admittedly members of a joint Hindu family. Defendant No. 3 is the grand-father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 5 is his father. Defendant No. 6 is his real uncle. Defendant No. 4 is his grandfather's brother and Defendant No. 7 is the son of the latter. All these Defendants together with Smt. Godawari, the next friend through whom the Plaintiff had brought the suit and Smt. Radhika Kuar, wife of Defendant No. 4 filed an application Under Section 4 of the EE Act as members of a joint Hindu family on 9-5-1936.

(2.) The Plaintiff alleged that he was born before that application had been filed, but he filed no claim in those proceedings Under Section 11 of the EE Act nor was he ever joint with the parties to those proceedings. It was, therefore, pleaded that the sale which took place in those proceedings was not binding on the Plaintiff-Appellant. It was further pleaded that the debts which were proved in the EE Act proceedings and those debts in which the property in suit was sold were immoral debts contracted by Ram Lakhan Defendant No. 3, grand-father of the Plaintiff, and Jai Kishun Das Defendant No. 4 grand-uncle of the Plaintiff. It was urged that on this ground those debts were not binding on the Plaintiff and consequently the property of the undivided Hindu family could not be sold for the satisfaction of those debts.

(3.) The suit was dismissed on the finding that the debts were for legal necessity and were not contracted for any immoral purpose so that they were binding on the Plaintiff and further that the suit was barred Under Sections 11 and 47 of the EE Act. These findings of the lower court have been challenged in this appeal.