The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the zamindari for the debts of the late zamindar under Hindu law, specifically considering the pious obligation of the son to pay the father's debt.

Barnes Peacock, J.

1. The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff, and the respondent the defendant, in a suit, No. 13 of 1875, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly. It appears that in an original suit, No. 8 of 1867, brought in the District Court of Tinnevelly, the late zamindar of Sivagiri, the father of the defendant, put in a razinama, dated the 20th January 18C8, whereby he acknowledged the sum of Rs. 55,872-12-0 to be due, and agreed that the amount should be paid on the 31st December 1872, together with interest at one per cent, per mensem, by the instalments mentioned therein, and he thereby hypothecated certain lands therein specified, being part of the zamindari, as a security for the payment of the principal and interest.

2. On the 4th September 1868, a decree was passed in accordance with the razinama. The money not having been paid according to the stipulations, the property hypothecated was attached, in the lifetime of the late zamindar, for instalments Nos. 1 to 9 mentioned in the razinama. The plaintiff (appellant), in his plaint in the suit now under appeal, alleged that the whole zamindari was on several occasions attached by other creditors, and that, subsequently to the death of the late zamindar, the plaintiff again attached the hypothecated property, on the 23rd of February 1874, for the 10th instalment of the razinama decree; that the District Court advertised that all the property in the zamindari would be sold in a lot on account of all the creditors; that the plaintiff presented a petition to the said District Court praying for a separate sale of the hypothecated property mentioned in the decree, or for the sale of the whole zamindari subject to his hypothecation lien; that the Court dismissed the said petition, on the 23rd of February 1874, without any inquiry; that subsequently, on the 25th February 1874, the right, title, and interest of the late zamindar in the whole of the zamindari was sold by auction and purchased by Subramania Mudaliar of Tinnevelly; that the defendant presented a petition praying for the release of the attachment made by the plaintiff for the last instalment, and that on the said petition an order was passed by the Court, on the 18th of April 1874, to the effect that the attachment ceased with the sale of the zamindari. The plaintiff further alleged that, by reason of the objections and measures taken by the defendant, the judgment debt remained unpaid, and that the plaintiff had thereby sustained heavy loss.

3. The plaintiff in his plaint also alleged that the zamindari was the self-acquired property of the late zamindar, and, moreover, that the debt acknowledged by the razinama was a just one, having been contracted by the late zamindar for the up-keep of the zamindari, for the liquidation of debts contracted on the liability of the whole zamindari before the birth of the defendant, and for the benefit of the zamindars family, and he prayed that a decree might be passed cancelling the orders passed on 23rd February and 18th April 1874, and upholding the attachment made by plaintiff in Suit No. 8 aforesaid, confirming his right to recover the judgment debt of the said Suit No. 8, on the liability of the said Sivagiri zamindari, and adjudging the sum of Rs. 88,062-12-0, as per particulars given, to be recovered by the plaintiff, with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant and on the liability of the property hypothecated to the plaintiff under the decree in the Suit No. 8, and specified in the schedule thereto, and of all other property that had devolved on him from the late zamindar, and granting such other relief as the Court might deem proper and necessary in the case.

4. In the particulars given, the sum of Rs. 88,062-12-0 was made up of Rs. 79,574-13-0 for principal, and Rs. 8,487-9-0 for interest due under the decree according to the terms of the razinama.

5. The property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint was the same as that hypothecated by