JAGDISH NARAIN Vs. HAZARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by two minor sons against the order of the learned Judge who refused to issue an injunction restraining the decree-holder from selling property mortgaged to him by their father. We do not propose to interfere with the decision of the learned Judge in this matter. In view of the statement made to us by Mr. Panna Lal it appears that the principal, if not the only, allegation upon which this suit could succeed would be to prove the alleged immorality of the father. Para. 3 of the plaint starts by an allegation that the father was "extravagant." As extravagance has no bearing on the matter, it is an irrelevant allegation. The paragraph further says that the father was "dissolute." That bare statement by itself is insufficient and offends against well known rules. A general charge of immorality cannot be permitted in a pleading. The immorality must be pleaded with particularity. That is, the exact nature of the immorality, be it gambling, drinking, women or anything else must be specified. Further the pleading must show with precision exactly how it came about at the particular time that the particular money was needed and used for the particular immorality charged. No Judge should allow a general paragraph of this nature to remain upon the record, and the proper order to make is to have the whole paragraph struck out. If so done on the application of the opposite party such opposite party should have the costs. THIS rule is most clearly set out in Ch. 6, para, 6 of Mr. P.C. Mogha's book on Law of Pleadings in British India, 3 Edn., p. 47 and the case of Tulshiram V/s. Bishnath and Gauri Shankar V/s. Manki A.I.R. 1924 All. 17, should be consulted as also the opening paragraphs of Ch. 6 of Mr. Mogha's book. One good reason for this exactness of particularity is that this type of case in which a Hindu son seeks to set aside an alienation by his father is a suit frequently engineered by the father. In this instance Mr. Panna Lal says that the father and son are on perfectly good terms, living in the same house and it may be that the allegations of immorality exist only in the imagination of the father who has made these assertions about himself with a view that the family should escape liability for the debt. It has not been shown that there is any apprehension that the property will be wrongfully sold in execution of the decree. THIS appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. The Registrar should direct the attention of the learned Subordinate Judge to our observations on para. 3 of the plaint.