1. The contention of Mr. Ramadoss in this appeal is that the debt incurred by the father was in the capacity of a trustee and therefore he must have been considered to have criminally misappropriated the trust funds and that the sons share cannot be made liable for such a debt.

2. There is nothing to show that the 1st defendant misappropriated any amount so as to bring him within the clutches of the Criminal Law and all that was found against him was that certain sums of money for which he was accountable were not accounted for by him and in a scheme suit he was ordered to pay the amount which came into his hands. We do not think that will amount to misappropriation or breach of trust within the meaning of Section 403 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code. If he had been found guilty of breach of trust he would have been removed from his office of trusteeship. But he has been allowed to continue. Therefore we cannot hold that he was guilty of breach of trust. Even if it is found that he misappropriated the amount which came into his hands we do not think the sons can escape the liability to pay their fathers debt. Mr. Ramadoss relied strongly upon Durbar Khachar v. Khachar Harsur