DALIP NARAIN SINGH Vs. PARMAOTI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, are two minors. They sued Parmaoti Bibi, decree-holder, the auction-purchaser, and, pro forma, their father, who was the judgment-debtor. It appears that the decree-holder, Parmaoti Bibi, obtained a decree against their father on a promissory note in the Court of Small Causes and that in. execution of that decree the property in dispute was brought to sale and was purchased by the defendant No. 2. The father of the plaintiffs, that is, the judgment-debtor, made two unsuccessful attempts to have the sale set aside. This suit is now brought on behalf of the minors for possession of 2/3rds of the property on the ground that only the father s interest could be sold in execution of the decree, which is against him alone, and that their share in the property could not be sold.

(2.) In the court below, it was stated in the plaint that the father was extravagant, of weak intellect, and a simpleton, and that the debt had been incurred for immoral purposes. The actual wording of the plaint is as follows: A simple money decree was obtained against defendant No. 3 on the basis of a pro-note which was executed, not for any family necessity, but for immoral pursuits.

(3.) Only one issue on this point was raised. It is the second issue, which runs: "Whether the debt to realize which the suit was filed was tainted with immorality. "