BRIJPAL SINGH Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal originally came up for heating before our learned brother Ghulam Hasan J. Having regard to the importance of the question raised, and to conflict of judicial opinion on the point, ha considered it desirable that it should be decided by a Bench. The matter has accordingly been referred to us.

(2.) The material facts lie within a short compass.

(3.) Ram Sarup, respondent l, obtained a simple money decree against Tejpal Singh. Subsequent to the passing of this decree, a partition was effected in Tejpal Singh's family consisting of himself and his three sons, Brijpal Singh, Jitendrapal Singh and Rajendrapal Singh, the present appellants. In execution of his decree Ram Sarup applied for bringing on record the names of the appellants (Tejpal Singh's sons) and sought to attach and sell the property allotted to the latter on partition. The sons preferred an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. They contended that the property allotted to them was not liable to attachment and sale because their father was alive and the pious obligation to repay the father's debts did not arise in the lifetime of the lather. The learned Munsif dismissed the objections. Tejpal Singh preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Hardoi. It was contended before him that even if the pious obligation of the sons of a Hindu father to pay their father's debts, which are not illegal or immoral, arose in the father's lifetime, the fact that a partition was effected in the family subsequent to the passing of the decree in respect of the debt in favour of the creditor, renders the property allotted to the sons at such partition not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the father's decree. This contention was rejected by the learned Judge on the authority of R. K. Subramania v. Sabapathi Ayyar, A. I. R. (15) 1928 Mad. 657 : (51 Mad. 361 F. B.) and Jageshwar Pandey v. Mani Ram, A. I. R. (14) 1927 Oudh 180 : (2 Luck. 561). The appeal was accordingly dismissed. Dissatisfied with this decision the sons have preferred the present appeal.