CHAUDHARI BED RAM SINGH Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by the plaintiff against the portion of his suit dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff Bed Ram Singh brought a suit on a simple mortgage which was executed for Rs. 7000 on 22 April, 1927 by one Inderjit Singh, defendant 1. The suit was contested by defendants 2 and 3, the minor sons of defendant 1. The mortgage deed on pp. 26 and 27 sets out the amount of consideration in four items. Of these items 1 and 4 have been disallowed by the Court below. Item 2 has been allowed, Rs. 1269 for payment of two previous simple bonds, and item 3, Rs. 1000 left in deposit to be taken when required, was admittedly never paid and is not in contest in appeal. The main contest was in regard to item 4 which was Rs. 4500 paid in cash at registration. Now the mortgage deed as originally drafted merely set out that the money was borrowed and did not mention any purpose for which the Rs. 4500 was borrowed. In the margin of the hypothecation bond the words are added towards the beginning, "in order to purchase mauza Takipur." The remaining item, the first item of Rs. 231, is to meet other expenses and for the completion of this document, and it has been disallowed. Now issue 2 as framed was: Was it executed for legal necessity or for payment of antecedent debts, or were the debts immoral and are not binding on the contesting defendants.

(2.) The Court below observed on p. 16 that the taking of Rs. 4500 for the purchase of property in Sharanpur District would be legal necessity. We do not agree as the purchase of property cannot be legal necessity for a joint Hindu family. The Court however has held that the Rs. 4500 was actually taken for an immoral purpose. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that there was not evidence before the Court on which it could arrive at that finding. Learned Counsel refers to Tulshi Ram V/s. Bishnath Prasad in which a Bench of this Court following various rulings of their Lordships of the Privy Council held on p. 8 as follows: Their Lordships of the Privy Council entirely agreed with the High Court that the general charge of immorality was wholly insufficient and that the connexion between the immorality and the debt must be proved. This view has been followed in numerous cases.

(3.) We agree that this proposition of law is correct. The only difficulty arises in its application and in deciding what evidence is sufficient to show a connexion between immorality and a debt. Learned Counsel argues that in the present case the connexion is not shown. The evidence is as follows. Firstly there is the hypothecation bond itself which shows that the words "in order to purchase mauza Takipur" were added as an after-thought to the hypothecation bond. Then there is evidence of Mathura Singh, patwari of Mirpur Mazra, the village in which defendant Inderjit Singh lives. This patwari states that he has been patwari of this village for 11 years, that Inderjit Singh is a bad character since 11 years and drinks and indulges in prostitution, His mother and brothers told me that he eats away the rent money and revenue cannot be deposited. Since then I deposit the revenue in villages under me. His income is sufficient to pay revenue excluding the income from khudkasht. Inderjit is a lambardar.