LALTA PRASAD Vs. GAJADHAR SHUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises in the present appeal is whether the sons (which expression in this judgment includes sons sons and son's son's sons) of a Hindu, who is the manager of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his sons and his nephews and grandnephews, are under a pious obligation to pay the debt incurred by him, when the debt was incurred neither to meet family necessities nor was tainted with illegality or immorality, and on the answer to that question depends the fate of this appeal. The defendants-appellants are the sons and grandsons of Raj Kumar Lal who was also a defendant in the Court below and is a proforma respondent in the present appeal. The suit giving rise to the appeal was for recovery of the amount due on the basis of a simple money bond dated 6th April 1923, executed by Raj Kumar Lal in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff originally filed a suit against Raj Kumar Lal alone but, on an application dated 19 December 1927, being made by the plaintiff, the present defendant- appellant and Debi Prasad and Chandi Prasad the nephew and grandnephew respectively of Raj Kumar Lal, were also impleaded as defendants to the suit.

(2.) The bond in suit was for a sum of Rs. 11,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 1,272 was advanced in cash by the plaintiff to Raj Kumar Lal and the balance of Rs. 9,728 was acknowledged by Raj Kumar Lal to be due to the plaintiff on five earlier bonds and promissory notes, three of which were executed by Raj Kumar Lal and two by Lalta Prasad, one of the sons of Raj Kumar Lal, and one of the appellants before us. The plaintiff alleged that the debt evidenced by the bond had been incurred by Raj Kumar Lal as the head and karta of the family to meet family necessities and that all the defendants were liable to pay the same. Debi Prasad and Chandi Prasad contested the suit on the ground that they were separate from Raj Kumar Lal, who had nothing to do with their branch of the family, and that Raj Kumar Lal was not the karta or the manager, and that the bond in suit was not for consideration and, in any case, the debt evidenced by the bond was not incurred for family necessity. They also pleaded limitation. Three separate written statements embodying identical pleas were filed on behalf of the defendants- appellants. They asserted that they had separated from Raj Kumar Lal and Raj Kumar Lal was not a member of a joint family along with them, nor was he the karta of the family. They further denied that the bond in suit was for consideration, or that the debt in suit was contracted for family necessity, or that they had in any way benefited by the same. They also pleaded limitation in bar of the plaintiff's claim.

(3.) The Court below, on a consideration, of the evidence in the case, found that Raj Kumar Lal and all the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family and that Raj Kumar Lal was the karta of that family and the partition decree, on which reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants in support of the plea of separation, was fraudulent. It held that the bond in suit was for consideration, but that no legal necessity for the debt had been proved and that the plaintiff did not make proper and bona fide inquiries as to the existence of the alleged necessities. It further held that the debts were not tainted with immorality or illegality and, that the suit was not barred by limitation. As a result of its findings it exempted Debi Prasad and Chandi Prasad from the claim and dismissed the suit against them. It is however held that the defendants-appellants, being the sons and grandsons of Raj Kumar Lal, were under a pious obligation to pay the debt in suit, as the debt was not raised for any immoral purpose, and accordingly, decreed the suit ex parte against Raj Kumar Lal and passed a decree for the amount claimed against the defendant-appellants, restricting it in its operation to the extent of the joint family property in their hands.