MURLI MANOHAR Vs. BINDESWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted the present suit to recover the amount due on a mortgage executed in their favour for Rs. 135 by one Ramdhari. Ramdhari was the karta of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his three sons and the sons of the eldest son. The eldest son of Ramdhari, defendant 1, was charged with a criminal offence and it appears that Ramdhari incurred the mortgage debt in connection with those proceedings. Rs. 45 out of Rs. 135 was expended in defending defendant 1 and Rs. 90 was spent in securing the release of the family property from a warrant which had been issued for realization of the fine imposed on defendant 1.

(2.) Both the Courts below have held that the mortgage debt was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family and was binding on the whole family. Against that decision the defendants have preferred the present appeal. In support of the appeal the learned advocate for the appellants has cited a large number of cases of different High Courts in which the debts in question represented sums acquired by the commission of such offences as criminal breach of trust or misappropriation. Such debts have been held to be debts incurred for immoral purposes and therefore not binding on the sons of the "borrower." This case is far different from those and is clearly within the scope of the decisions of this Court in Hanumant Mahton V/s. Sonadhari Singh AIR 1920 Pat 703 and Dhanukdhari Singh V/s. Rambirich Singh AIR 1922 Pat 553 in which it was held that a mortgage debt incurred for the purpose of defending a member of a joint Hindu family against a criminal charge was a debt binding on the whole family.

(3.) With regard to Rs. 90 it appears that a warrant had been issued for the seizure of the movable properties of the eldest son of Ramdhari. At that time such warrants were considered to be legally executable by seizure of joint property and there is no doubt that movable property of the joint family would have been seized in execution of the warrant. In order to secure the release of the movable property Ramdhari had to raise money and, out of the money which he raised, Rs. 90 was spent in securing the release of the movable property which was about to be seized. In my opinion there can be no doubt that securing the release of this property constituted legal necessity and the release was for the benefit of the family.