HIRA LAL Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question before the Full Bench is whether the word "debt" in the second proposition laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Brij Narain v. Mangala Prasad and Ors. A.I.R. (11) 1924 P.C. 60, refers only to a simple money- debt or also to a debt secured by a mortgage. The reference became necessary because of a conflict of views on this point between the majority opinion to which expression was given by Mukerji and Boys JJ. in Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. Hoshyar Singh and Anr. . and the decisions of the Avadh Chief Court represented by Nand Lal and Anr. V/s. Umrai and Ors A.I.R. (13) 1926 Oudh 321.

(2.) The suit which gives rise to the appeal was for a declaration that a simple mortgage-deed of a house executed on 12 September 1930 jointly by Khairati Lal, defendant 1 and his son-Puran Chand, defendant 2, in favour of Puran Lal in lieu of Rs. 2000 and a decree for sale based thereon in favour of Puran Lal's successor, Mt. Janki, defendant 3 are void. The house was purchased in 1907 by Khairati Lal's father Kali Charan. On his death it devolved on Khairati and his son Puran Chand. The principal plaintiffs in the suit are the sons of Puran Chand. They joined with them Kali-Charan's brother Hira Lal as plaintiff 1. The following pedigree will show the array of the parties:

(3.) The plaintiffs alleged that Kali Charan was a member of the joint family consisting of himself and his two brothers Hira Lal and Jawahir Lal, that Jawahir Lal separated long time ago, that thereafter Kali Charan and Hira Lal remained joint, that the house in suit was purchased from the funds of the joint family of Kali Charan and Hira Lal, that Puran Chand was a minor at the time of the execution of the deed and that the mortgage of 1930 was without legal necessity. They claimed, therefore, that the deed and the decree of Mt. Janki based thereon did not bind the plaintiffs.