Payment of debt incurred by father is pious obligation of son.

1. Defendants in O.S.No.9 of 1984, on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Tenkasi, are the appellants. Plaintiff Arumughathammal was the sole respondent in the second appeal. She died and her legal representative has been impleaded as second respondent.

2. Suit filed by the (deceased) plaintiff was one to recover a sum of Rs.23,248-96. P. by sale of mortgaged properties, and for other consequential reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant on his own behalf and as legal guardian of defendants 7 and 8, executed a simple mortgage deed on 210. 1975 for a sum of Rs.17,000, agreeing to repay the same within a period of three years therefrom. He also agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs.l.25P. per Rs.lOO per month on the original principal. It is averred that the transaction was entered into for the benefit of the family and in his capacity as father-cum-manager of the family. Defendants 2 to 6 who are major adult members of the family have also attested that mortgage deed fully knowing that the family property is offered as security. It is said that the liability was incurred for the purpose of the family and, therefore, all the members are personally liable and also from out of the joint family properties. First defendant issued a notice under Ex.A-1, questioning his liability, and this necessitated the filing of the suit.

3. First defendant and defendants 2 to 8 have filed separate written statements, though they have taken similar contentions.

4. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, he said that himself, plaintiffs brother and the Power of Attorney (P.W.I) were doing business jointly, in powerlooms and match factory. In 1961, they entered into a joint business venture, and by the year 1970, the business collapsed. On 33. 1970, an agreement was executed between P.W.I and first defendant wherein the liability of the first defendant in the loss was fixed at Rs.ll,247.47P. which he was bound to pay to P.W.I. The said amount was debited in the accounts of Meenakshisundaram, son of P.W.I, who was running another match factory by name Sundar Match Factory. More than Rs.6,000 was due towards interest and, therefore, making it a round figure of Rs. 17,000 a simple mortgage happened to be executed in the name of plaintiff. First defendant contended that the document is without consideration and he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. He further contended that in Ex.A-1 dated 210. 1975, the statement that he has received cash of Rs.5,925 is a false case. There was no money transaction on that date. Likewise, the further statement in Ex.A-1 that a sum of Rs.7,075 was reserved with the mortgagee for payment to Meenakshisundaram is also not correct. There is a further statement in Ex.A-1 that a sum of Rs.4,000 is reserved for discharging a promissory note debt incurred by the first defendant from P.W.Is wife. According to him, there was no such transaction and Ex.A-1 is one without consideration. He further contended that even if there was any transaction, that was before 1970 and when the accounts were settled on 33. 1970 and by the time Ex.A-1 was executed, more than three years had elapsed and, therefore, there could not have been any acknowledgment of liability. It was further contended by the first defendant that simultaneously with the execution of Ex.A-1, P.W.I has admitted by writing a letter to him of even date that no interest is payable on the amount secured under Ex.A-1. According to the first defendant, since he has not received any consideration for Ex.A-1, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. In the written statement filed by defendants 2 to 8, they have taken a similar contention, and further contended that the match factory or the powerloom companies are all first defendants new ventures, and not a family business. Even if he has incurred any liability, the same is not binding on those defendants, or their right in the family property. They prayed