PULAVARTHI LAKSHMANASWAMI (DECEASED) Vs. SRIMAT TIRUMULA PEDDINTI TIRUVENGALA RAGHAVACHARYULU, MINOR BY MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AND GUARDIAN, MOLUGU TIRUVENGALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals raise questions of some general importance relating to the true scope of the pious obligation of a Hindu son to discharge his father's debts.

(2.) One Viraraghavacharyulu and his brother Ramanujacharyulu were members of a joint Hindu family of which the former was the manager. Viraraghavacharyulu borrowed Rs. 2,000 from the appellant in both appeals on a promissory note, dated 18 December, 1929. The debt was renewed in 1932 by the execution of another note for Rs. 3,070-7-6 being the amount then due for principal and interest under the earlier note. A sum of Rs. 400 was paid on 23 September, 1935 and the payment was endorsed on the note by both Viraraghavacharyulu and Rarrjanujacharyulu. Viraraghavacharyulu having died in 1936, the appellant sued his son and Ramanujacharyulu (O.S. No. 48 of 1938) for recovery of the balance due on the note. A.S. No. 412 of 1940 arises out of that suit. The connected appeal A.S. No. 383 of 1940 arises out of another suit (O.S. No. 50 of 1938) brought by the appellant against the same defendants to enforce payment of the balance of principal and interest due on a promissory note for Rs. 16,051-15-0 executed by both the brothers on 16 October, 1933. This note was given in renewal of an earlier note for Rs. 9,500 also executed by both of them. In this sum was included Rs. 1,563-15-0 being the principal and interest due under a promissory note executed by Viraraghavacharyulu alone for Rs. 1,000 on 20 December, 1926. The main defence in the first suit was that the debt was borrowed by Viraraghavacharyulu for payment to his concubine for meeting the expenses of her grand- daughter's marriage and that it could not therefore bind the defendants or their family properties. The defendants also pleaded that they are agriculturists within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act and as such were entitled in any event to have the debt scaled down in accordance with the provisions of that Act. In the second suit also the defendants claimed relief under the Act as agriculturists, and in addition the son pleaded that a portion of the sum borrowed having been utilised for discharging a debt due to a third party from whom Viraraghavacharyulu had borrowed monies for payment to his concubine, the debt could not bind the family properties in the hands of the son. By consent of parties, both suits were tried together, the evidence being recorded in O.S. No. 50 of 1938.

(3.) The Court below has found that the debt sued for in O.S. No. 48 of 1938 was incurred by Viraraghavacharyulu for payment to his concubine one Saradamba for meeting the expenses of the marriage of her grand-daughter and must therefore be deemed to have been contracted for an immoral purpose; but he held that the debt was binding on the family property in the hands of the son as the appellant was a bona fide lender without knowledge of the purpose for which the amount was borrowed. On the question as to the agriculturist status of the defendants, the learned Judge held that they were disqualified under Proviso D to Section 3 (ii) of the Act from claiming its benefits as they were the holders of an estate called Dumpagadapa agraharam in respect of which they paid more than Rs. 100 an quitrent to the Government. He held, however, that the rate of interest charged, namely, Rs. 1-9-6 per cent. per month compound was substantially unfair and reduced it to nine per cent. per annum, simple, and passed a decree accordingly against the family properties in the hands of the son and dismissed the suit so far as Ramanuiacharyulu was concerned. In the second suit, the learned Judge found that a sum of Rs. 1,874-12-0 out of the amount borrowed under the suit promissory note (Ex. A) was paid in discharge of a debt due to D. W. 2 under an earlier note for Rs. 2,000 (Ex. XVI) executed by Viraraghavacharyulu and that the sum borrowed from D. W. 2 was also paid by Viraraghavacharyulu to Saradamba in connection with her grand- daughter's marriage. He held however that the debt as a whole was binding on the family properties in the hands of the son as the appellant advanced the loan bona fide, as in the other case, without any knowledge that part of the amount borrowed was to be applied in discharge of the promissory note, Ex. XVI. He reduced the rate of interest from Rs. 1-13-6 per cent. per mensem compound to nine per cent. per annum simple and passed a decree for the amount found payable against Ramanujacharyulu personally and against the family properties in the hands of the son. Not being satisfied with these decrees, the appellant has brought the present appeals to this Court and the respondents have preferred a memorandum of cross- objections in each appeal as regards the points decided against them in the Court below.