The doctrine of pious obligation does not extend to a daughter-in-law discharging a time-barred debt incurred by her father-in-law.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Patra, J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against a reversing judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Cut tack in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. Nidhi and Kina were two brothers being sons of one Panu Das. Kina's sons were Hari and Gouranga, As Nidhi had no son, he had adopted Hari, Plaintiff No. 1 Pravakar is Hari's son. Gouranga died in the years 1929 leaving behind his widow Kanchan, but, no issues. Kina died in the year 1940. During the life time of Nidhi and Kina they had, separated from each other. The property in dispute in this litigation was admittedly self acquired property of Kina.

2. On 25-11-1954, Kanchan executed the Kabala Ext. A, in respect of the disputed property in favour of Respondent Subal Padhan. It was recited in the sale deed that the sale was,necessary to procure, funds to discharge certain debts which Kina had incurred and also for her own maintenance. Shortly before the execution of Ext. A and at a time when Kanchan was still alive, Appellant No. 1 Pravakar alleging that he has become,entitled to the disputed property executed two sale deeds in respect of portions thereof (Exts. 1/a and 2/a) in favour of Appellants 2 and 3. As these two Appellants created disturbance in possession of the Respondent, there was, a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, between the Respondent on one side and Appellants 2 and 3 on the other. That proceeding terminated in favour of Appellants 2 and 3. The Respondent Subal there upon instituted Title Suit No. 320 of 1959 against all the three Appellants for declaration of his title to the disputed property on the ground that he had purchased the property from' the limited owner Kanchan who executed the sale deed for legal necessity. That trial Court found inter alia that there was legal necessity for Kanchan to execute the sale deed Ex. A, and consequently Subal acquired a valid title to the disputed property. He, therefore, held that Exts. 1/a and is executed by Appellant No. 1 in favour of Appellants 3 and 2 respectively, were invalid and inoperative. He accordingly passed a decree in favour of Plaintiff Subal Padhan (Respondent in this case). On appeal (T.A. 10/107 of 1964) the appellate Court held inter alia that Appellant No. 1 being not a party to the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, he was not a necessary party to the suit and therefore dismissed the suit as against the present Appellant No. 1 In these circumstances, he did not consider necessary to discuss the evidence regarding the existence or otherwise of any legal necessity for Kanchan to execute the sale deed Ext. A. That appeal was disposed of on 5-7-1965 and shortly thereafter the suit giving rise to this appeal was field.

3. The substantial defence put up on behalf of Defendant is that there was legal necessity for Kanchan to execute the sale deed Ext. A and consequently that document is valid and the Respondent acquired a valid title to the disputed property. The trial Court arrived at the finding that there was no legal necessity for Kanchan to sell the disputed property to the Defendant under Ext. A. He further found that although by the time Exts. 1/a and 1/b were executed by Appellant No. 1 in favour of Appellants 2 & 3, Appellant No. 1 had not acquired a fun title to the disputed property, because by then the limited' owner Kanchan was still alive, Plaintiff-Appellant No. 1 acquired, full title to the property after the death of Kanchan in 1955 and therefore by operation of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 must be deemed to have acquired title to the property. He, therefore decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Respondent Subal appealed. The appellate Court came to hold that the Defendant-Respondent on making bona fide enquiries was satisfied about the existence of legal necessity for Kanchan to execute the sale deed Ext., A and that consequ