ANAND PRAKASH Vs. NARAIN DAS-DORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and the connected Appeal raise the same questions of law and may be disposed of together.

(2.) A creditor firm known by the style of Narain Das Dori Lal applied that the following six firms be adjudicated insolvents : (1) Hazari Lal Tota Ram of Bahjoi; (3) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bombay; (3) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Jallandhar; (4) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Hoshiarpur; (5) Bhekhari Das Ishar Das of Hapur and (6) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bahjoi.

(3.) The petitioning creditors staged in their application, dated 21 May 1925, that the partners of these firms were 29 in number and included Hazari Lal, Tota Sam and their minor sons. Anand Prakash is a minor son of Hazari Lal. Chaitan Sarup is a minor son of Tota Ram. It has not been controverted that Hazari Lal and Tota Ram, together with their sons, adults and minors, are members of a joint Hindu family. The application for adjudication was opposed, amongst others, by Anand Prakash and Chaitan Sarup upon a variety of grounds. They contended that they were minors and as such could not be adjudicated insolvents. They disowned all connexion with the first five firms which have been mentioned above, and contended that they were not liable for the debts contracted by thosefirms inasmuch as the debts were incurred not for the benefit of the family, but to meet losses in wagering transactions which used to be carried on by those firms. They further contended that the firm of Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bahjoi was their ancestral business and that the assets of the said firm or their interests therein could not be seized in insolvency.