PERIASAMI MUDALIAR Vs. TSEETHARAMA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With regard to the first question referred for our decision, it is difficult to see on what principle a judgment-debt due by a father should be less the subject of a pious obligation on the part of his son than any other debt due by the father. That the debt is not the same as the original debt seems clear. It may, in fact, be more, or it may be less. Even though it be more than the original debt the father by virtue of the judgment is bound to discharge it. A judgment of a competent court creates a duty on the part of the father to discharge the sum decreed and there is no reason why such a debt should be excepted from the rule of Hindu Law which imposes a pious obligation on the son to discharge his father's debts, provided they were not incurred for what are technically described as immoral or illegal purposes.

(2.) I would, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative.

(3.) As regards the second question, if the suit had been brought on the original cause of action the article of limitation applicable would have been the same as against the father, i. e., Art. 52; but as the suit has been brought on the cause of action arising from the decree against the father, the article applicable is 120. Art. 122 has, in my opinion, no application, for the suit is not, in any view, "a suit upon a judgment". It is a suit to enforce a son's pious obligation under the Hindu Law to discharge his father's debt. There is therefore no bar by limitation and there is no necessity to answer the third question in the reference. Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.