LAKSHMINKANTA JHA, J.

1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of Shearer, J. upholding the concurrent decisions of the courts below & dismissing the suit.

2. The facts relevant to the point for decision may be shortly stated as follows: One Raghunandan Singh, father of the pltfs. along with one Awadh Singh, claimed raiyati interest in 19.5 acres of bakasht land situated in an estate belonging to Mt. Chandrakali Kuar, deft. 1. A dispute arose between the parties over the possession of this land & a proceeding under S. 144, Cr. P. C, was started, which terminated in favour of Raghunandan & Awadh. Consequently, Chandrakali Kuar, along with her granddaughter in whose favour she had executed a deed of gift, instituted a suit (Title Suit No. 113 of 1941) for possession of the disputed land against Raghunandan & Awadh. Raghunandan contested the suit & his defence was that Chandrakali had settled the land in dispute with him & Awadh under a sada patta. In support of his case he produced a hukumnama, which admittedly bore the thumb impression of Chandrakali, & several rent receipts. The defence was disbelieved & the suit was decreed on 13-5-1941, with costs. Raghunandan & Awadh preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 30-4-1942. Thereupon they preferred a second appeal to this Ct. During the pendency of the second appeal Raghunandan died, & on his death the pltfs., along with their brother Bahrain (since deceased), were substituted. This second appeal was also dismissed with costs on 3-12-1943.

3. During the pendency of the appeal in the first appellate Ct. Chandrakali took out execution for costs of the trial Ct. against Raghunandan & Awadh in Execution Case No. 998 of 1941, & 5.10 acres of land belonging to the joint family consisting of the pltfs. & Raghunandan was sold on 20-1-1942, at Ct. sale & purchased by Chandrakali for Rs. 215/- & she later on took delivery of possession of the land on 9-11-1944.

4. The present suit was instituted by the pltfs. on the 7-4-1945, challenging the sale on the ground that they were under no pious obligation to pay up the decree for costs awarded against their father, Raghunandan, because he was guilty of a fraudulent act in that he produced a forged hukumnama bearing the thumb impression of Mt. Chandrakali in support of the settlement of the land in favour of himself & Awadh. The decree for costs, according to them was of the nature of avyavaharika debt, &, therefore, they claimed immunity & sought recovery of possession of 12 annas interest in the suit land which was claimed by them as joint ancestral property. The defence of Chandrakali Kuar was that the pltf. Kirit Singh was himself a party to the fraud along with his father Raghunandan, that the decree for costs awarded against the pltfs. was not at all of the nature of avyavaharika debt & that the sale held in execution of the decree for costs was binding on them.

5. The trial Ct. held that the decree for costs was not an avyaharika debt & that the pltfs. were under pious obligation to pay the same. The suit was accordingly dismissed. On appeal, the learned subordinate Judge upheld the decision of the trial Ct. On second appeal, Shearer, J. also took the same view & dismissed the appeal.

6. The question for determination is whether the pltfs. who are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, can impeach the sale on the ground that having regard to the nature of the judgment-debt, they were under no liability to pay it & the doctrine of pious obligation could have no application. The contention of Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, for the applts., is that the judgment-debt created under the decree of the Ct. is avyavaharika because Raghunandan used a forged document in support of his case.

7. On a review of the Hindu law texts, to which I shall presently refer, & the judicial pronouncements, I think the applts contention must fail. According to Smritis, if a Hindu dies indebted, he goes to hell. For Katyayana