- (1.)THIS is an appeal by the decree-Holders against the decision of the District Judge allowing an appeal from the Munsif's order in an execution case. The decree-holders had sued one Ramakant Dubey together with his sons and grandsons in respect of indebtedness due to the plaintiff-firm for cloth supplied and money lent, with the allegation that the principal defendant (who was in fact the karta of the family), acknowledged the debt and executed certain chithas. The decree which they obtained was against the defendants for a sum of Rs. 1, 721-1- 9, principal and interest and for costs of the suit. The decree-holders sought to execute the decree by the arrest of the sons of the principal defendant and the learned District Judge has in my opinion rightly held that construing the decree in the proper manner it did not make the sons of the principal defendant personally liable for the decretal debt.
(2.)NOW, as I take it from the authorities, the principle of law of the liability of sons for the debts of the father in the case of joint Hindu family is shortly stated in the following propositions: A son as a member of a joint Hindu family is liable for the debts incurred by the karta of the family if he has derived benefit therefrom. Secondly, a son is liable for the debts of his father even if he has not derived benefit therefrom, on the ground of the pious obligation to pay the debts of his father and can only resist liability if he can show that such debts were incurred for immoral purposes. Thirdly in neither case can the son be made personally liable for the debts, but only can be made liable to the extent of the estate coming into his possession. These propositions were made perfectly clear by several decisions of this Court, to the first of which I was a party but which was delivered by Khaja Muhammad Noor, J. Sukhdeo Prasad Narayan Singh V/s. Madhu-sudan Prasad Narayan Singh 132 Ind Cas 871 : 871 : 10 Pat. 305 : 12 P. L. T. 75 : A. I. R. 1931 Pat. 177: Ind. Rul. (1931) Pat, 295.. The same view has been expressed by Khaja Muhammad Noor, J. sitting with Macpherson, J. in Bhudaram V/s. Udai Narayn 135 Ind. Cas. 69 : 12 P. L. T. 741 : Ind. Rul. (1931) Pat. 16 : A. I. R. 1932 Pat. 12. A similar point of view has been expressed by Kulwant Sahay, J. in Jwala Prasad v. Bhuda Ram 131 Ind Cas, 420 : 10 Pat 503 : 12 P. L. T. 707, AIR 1931 Pat 328 : Ind, Rul, (1931) Pat, 452. But the appellants here seem to draw other conclusions from a decision of Jwala Prasad, J. sitting with James, J. in Dalip Narayan Singh v. Raghunandan Prasad 136 Ind Cas, 447 : 13 P. L. T. 160 : Ind. Rul. (1932) Pat. 111 : AIR 1932 Pat, 184. It is true that a reading of the judgment without reference to the precise facts of the case might lead to the conclusion that Jwala Prasad, J. took a different view of the law and that ha would have held that a son may be made personally liable for the debts of his father but when the facts of the case are" examined, it is found that there had been a decree passed not only against the father but against the sons based upon the contract which was specifically made by the father on his own behalf and also as guardian for the sons. In my opinion, therefore, this authority in no way detracts from the authorities to which I have referred and the sons are not liable save to the extent that the estate comes to their hands. In my opinion, therefore, the view of the learned District Judge was correct and this appeal must be dismissed with costs. Saunders, J. 1. I agree.