Mukherjea, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor in a proceeding for execution of a money decree and it is directed against the judgment of a Letters Patent Bench of the Punjab High Court, dated 18th of May, 1949, by which the learned Judges affirmed, in appeal, a decision of a single Judge of that. Court dated 29th October, 1946. The original order against which the appeal was. taken to the High Court was made by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala, in Execution Case No. 18 of 1945, dismissing the objections preferred by the appellants under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

To appreciate the contentions that have been raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to give a short narrative of the material events in their chronological order. On 30th September, 1925, Baldev Das, the father of the appellants, who was, at that time the manager of a joint Hindu family, consisting of himself and his sons, executed a mortgage bond in favour of Mst. Naraini, the original respondent No. 1, and another person named Talok Chand, by which certain immovable properties belonging to the joint family were hypothecated to secure a loan of Rs. 16,000. On 16th April, 1928, the appellants along with a minor brother of theirs named Summer Chand filed a suit - being Suit No. 23 of 1928 - in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur against their father Baldev Das for partition of the joint family properties. The suit culminated in a final decree for partition on 20th July, 1928 and the joint family properties were divided by metes and bounds and separate possession was taken by the father and the sons. On 29th September, 1934, Mst. Naraini filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala, against Baldev Das for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,500. only on the basis of the mortgage bond referred to above. It was stated in the plaint that the money was borrowed by the defendant as manager of a joint Hindu family and the plaintiff prayed for a decree against the mortgaged property as well as against the joint family. On 18th December, 1934, the appellants made an application before the Subordinate Judge under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 34, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, praying that they might be added as parties, defendants to the suit and the points in issue arising therein might be decided in their presence. It was asserted in the petition that Baldev Das was not the manager of a joint family and that the family properties had been partitioned by a decree of the Court, as a result of which the properties alleged to be the subject-matter of the mortgage were allotted to the share of the petitioners. In reply to this petition, the plaintiff’s counsel stated in Court on 7th February, 1935, that his client would give up the claim for a mortgage decree against the properties in suit and would be satisfied only with a money decree against Baldev Das personally. The plaint was amended accordingly, deleting all reference to the joint family and abandoning. the claim against the mortgaged property. Upon this the appellants withdrew their application for being made parties to the suit and reserved their right to take proper legal action if and when necessary. On 17th April, 1935, Baldev Das died and on 2nd September following, the appellants as well as their mother, who figures as respondent No. 5 in this appeal, were brought on the record as legal representatives of Baldev Das. On 9th October, 1935, the appellants filed a written statement in which a number of pleas were taken in answer to the plaintiff’s claim and it was asserted in paragraph 10 of the written statement that Baldev Das dealt Badri or speculative transactions and if any money was due to the plaintiff at all in connection with such transactions, the debt was illegal and immoral and not binding on the family property. On the same day the Court recorded an order to the effect that as the plaintiff had given up her claim for a mortgage decree, the lega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document