The acknowledgment by the father extended the period of limitation against himself, and as the pre-partition debts were still enforceable against him, his divided sons were also liable under the pious obligation rule in Hindu law.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question which the Court is called upon to answer in this case is whether a Hindu father who has been adjudicated an insolvent, can by reason of the acknowledgment of indebtedness embodied in the schedule filed by him in the insolvency proceedings extend the period of limitation against his sons who have separated from him since the debts were incurred, the debts not having been incurred for any illegal or immoral purpose.

2. The first and second respondents filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada to recover a sum of Rs. 17,909-7-9 claimed to be due on four promissory notes executed by the father of the appellants. The promissory notes are dated the 10th May, the 12th June, the 18th August 1929 and the 31st May, 1930 respectively. When they were executed the first appellant was joint with his father. The second appellant had not then been born. On the 2nd November, 1931 the first appellant brought a suit for the partition of the family estate. On the 16th November, 1931 a preliminary decree for partition was passed, but a final decree did not follow until the 6th April, 1935. The father had died on the 17th January, 1934. A copy of the final decree has not been printed, but it is common ground that its effect was to divide the appellants from their father and from one another.

3. On the 13th March, 1931 a creditor applied to the Court to adjudicate the father an insolvent and on the 13th November, 1931 an order of adjudication was passed. On the 21st December, 1931 the father filed his schedule and thereby acknowledged his indebtedness on the promissory notes now in suit. The plaint was filed on the 21st December, 1934. The appellants pleaded that the suit was barred by the law of limitation, having been filed more than three years after the execution of the promissory notes. The plaintiffs respondents, however, relied on the acknowledgment of indebtedness made by the father of the appellants in his schedule. The Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in whose Court the suit was instituted held that it was in time and passed a decree for the amount claimed. The appellants appealed to this Court and the appeal was called for hearing before Venkataramana Rao and Abdur Rahman, JJ., who have made this reference.

4. In Munisawmi v. Kutti (1933)65MLJ311 , a Division Bench of this Court (Beasley, C.J. and Bardswell, J,) held that a Hindu son is liable on a promissory note executed by his father before partition and kept alive by an acknowledgment made by the father after partition. If this decision is to stand the appellants are out of Court. The learned Judges who have made this reference, however, formed the opinion that this decision requires reconsideration and consequently have referred to a Full Bench the question stated at the outset of this judgment. I may mention that the learned Judges have found that the plaintiffs respondents have based their claim on the debts as well as on the actual promissory notes.

5. It is a well established rule of Hindu law that a son is under a pious obligation to pay his fathers debts, provided that they have not been incurred for any illegal or immoral purpose, but it has been held that the rule does not apply to a debt incurred subsequent to partition. See Subramania Aiyar v. Sabapathy Aiyar (1927) 54 M.L.J. 726 : I.L.R. Mad. 361 Baluswami Aiyar, In re (1928)55MLJ175 and Sat Narain v. Sri Kishen Das (1936) 71 M.L.J. 812 : L.R. 63 IndAp 384 : I.L.R. 17 Lah. 644 (P.C.). As already indicated, the debts in the present case were incurred before partition, and at the time of the institution of the suit were lawfully enforceable against the fathers estate, because of the acknowledgment made by him when he signed his schedule in the insolvency proceedings. The signing of the schedule constituted an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The acknowledgment was, however, a purely personal matter, and the father canno