The following three questions have been referred to the Full Bench by a Divisional Bench of this Court, of which I was a member:

(i) Whether a mortgage decree for sale simpliciter, without any personal liability, obtained against a father alone on a mortgage of the joint family property created by him for a purpose not binding on the family is binding on the son’s share by the application of the principle of pious obligation;

(ii) Whether a sale held of the joint family property in execution of such a decree is binding on the son’s share and

(iii) What is the period of limitation for the son’s suit to set aside the said decree and the sale held in execution thereof.

The relevant and short statement of facts which led up to this reference may be stated:-Hajee Abdul Rahiman, the 2nd defendant in the suit, obtained in a partition effected with the other sharers items 2 to 7 and 9 to 11 of the plaint schedule. Subsequently he acquired items 1 and 8 from his brother Hajee Muhammad Ibrahim Sait. On 5th December, 1929, the 2nd defendant executed a mortgage deed hypothecating items 1 to 9 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000 in favour of the 1st defendant company, the Provident Investment Co