The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of sons for their father's debt under Hindu law, and the interpretation of previous judgments and legal provisions in determining the sons' liability in execution proceedings.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit and they can be disposed of here in one judgment. The appellants obtained a money decree against the third respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Parvatipur. The appellants made the third respondents sons parties to the suit and they are respondents 1, 2 and 4. The suit was on a promissory note executed by the father alone. The sons were joined as defendants on the ground that the debt was incurred for family necessities. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, as he was not satisfied that the promissory note was genuine, but on appeal to the District Judge a decree was passed against the father. In the District Court the appellants decided not to ask for a decree against the sons who were dismissed from the suit. In due course the appellants instituted execution proceedings and asked for the attachment and sale of the sons interests in the family property. The sons objected on the ground that as they had been dismissed from the suit they could not be held liable for their fathers debt. The District Munsif upheld their objection, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge held that they could be held liable in execution proceedings. The sons then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by King, J., who allowed it, but granted leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. The Subordinate Judge found that there was no intention on the part of the appellants in allowing the sons to be dismissed from the suit to exonerate them altogether. King, J., reversed the Subordinate Judges decision because he considered that the authorities which support the Subordinate Judges decision had in effect been overruled by the decision of the Privy Council in Raja Ram v. Raja Bakhsh Singh (1938) 1 M.L.J. 41 : I.L.R. 13 Luck. 61 . The appellants contend that the learned Judge has misconceived the effect of this decision. They say that it has not in any way altered the law as stated in the decisions of this Court.

3. It is not necessary to examine all the judgments of this Court which have a bearing on the question; it is sufficient to refer to the Full Bench decision in Periasami Mudaliar v. Seetharama Chettiar (1903) 14 M.L.J. 84 : I.L.R. 27 Mad. 243 and to Periaswami v. Vaidhilingam Pillai (1937) 47 L.W. 60 and Doraiswami v. Nagasami AIR1929Mad898 , which were decided by Division Benches. In Periasami Mudaliar v. Seetharama Chettiar (1903) 14 M.L.J. 84 : I.L.R. 27 Mad. 243 ,Benson, Bhashyam Aiyangar and Russell, JJ., held that, independently of the debt arising from the original transaction entered into by a father a decree passed against him in respect of the transaction by its own force creates a debt as against him which his sons are under the Hindu law under an obligation to discharge, unless they can show that the debt is illegal or immoral. Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., said:

But I can see no reason why a suit could not be brought against the son to recover a debt of record due by the father, which debt the" father was under an obligation to discharge, quite independently of the cause of action or the alleged original debt on which the suit had been brought against him.... The whole of the joint family property in the hands of the son must be held liable to satisfy the debt imposed upon the father by the judgment, as a solemn debt of record, quite independently of the original cause of action or alleged debt on which the suit against the father had been brought.

4. In Periaswami v. Vaidhilingam Pillai (1937) 47 L.W. 60, Varadachariar and Pandrang Row, JJ., considered a case in which the suit was filed against the father and his sons, but before judgment was passed the suit was withdrawn as against the sons. The question was whether the sons were liable inasmuch as the debt was a debt binding upon them under the rule of Hindu Law. The learned Judges held that the withdrawal of the suit as against the sons did not exonerate them. The result of th