The liability of the sons to discharge the debts of the father which are not tainted with immorality or illegality is based on the pious obligation of the sons which continues to exist in the lifetime and after the death of the father and which does not come to an end as a result of partition of the joint family property.

Judgement

J. L. KAPUR, J. (with him S. JAFER IMAM, J.) : This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay varying the decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff s suit for possession by partition of joint family property.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass, M. B. Jakati defendant 1 was the Managing Director of Dharwar Urban Cooperative Bank Limited which went into liquidation, and in that capacity he was receiving a yearly remuneration of Rs. 1,000. As a result of certain proceedings taken against defendant 1, M. B. Jakati, by the liquidator of the Bank, a payment order for Rs. 15,100 was made by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 21st April 1942. In execution of this payment order a bungalow belonging to M. B, Jakati defendant 1 was attached by the Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code on 27th July 1942. Notice for sale was issued on 24th November 1942, and the proclamation on 24th December 1942. The sale was fixed for 2nd February 1943. On 16th January 1943, M. B. Jakati defendant 1 applied for postponing the sale which was rejected. The auction sale was held on 2nd February 1943, and was confirmed on 23rd June 1943,-the purchaser was S. N. Borkar defendant 7 now respondent 1. On 10th February 1944, respondent 1 sold the property to defendants 8 to 10 who are respondents 2 to 4,

3. The following pedigree table will assist in understanding the case :

4. On 15th January 1943, Krishnaji a son of defendant 1 brought a suit for partition of the joint family property and possession of his separate share alleging inter alia that the purchase by respondent 1 of the bungalow was not binding on the joint family as " it was not liable to be sold for the illegal and immoral acts on the part of defendant 1 which were characterised as misfeasance"; that the auction sale was under S.155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code under which only "the right, title and interest of the defaulter" could be sold and therefore the right, title and interest of only the father, defendant 1 was sold and not that of the other members. The plaintiff claim 1/4 share of the property and also alleged that he was not on good terms with his father who had neglected his interest : that he was staying with his mother s sister and was not being maintained by his father and mother. On 12th January 1944, appellant 1 filed his written statement supporting the claim for partition and claiming his own share. He supported the claim of the then plaintiff that the sale in favour of respondent 1 was not binding on the joint family. Defendant 2, now appellant 2, the mother, also supported the plaintiff s claim and on the death of Krishnaji, she claimed his 1/4 share as his heir. After the death of the original plaintiff Krishnaji, Shriniwas appellant 1 was substituted as plaintiff on 28th June 1944.

5. The suit was mainly contested by respondents 1 to 4. Respondent 1 pleaded that plaintiff s suit for partition was collusive having been brought at the instance of defendant 1 M. B. Jakati and it was not bona fide; that defendant 1 was made liable at the instance of the liquidator of the Dharwar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., for misfeasance because he acted negligently in the discharge of his duties as managing director of the Bank; that the debt was binding on the family as defendant 1 M. B. Jakati had been receiving a yearly remuneration from the Bank and the properties were sold in payment of a debt binding on the family and therefore the sale in execution of the payment order could not be challenged as the sons were under a pious obligation under the Hindu law to discharge the debts of their father; that the sale could only be challenged on proof of the debt of defendant 1 being for an "immoral or illegal" purpose. These pleadings gave rise to several issues.

6. The learned Civil Judge held that the suit was collusive; that the liability which defendant 1 incurred was Avyavaharika and was therefore not binding on