The extent of the liability of the son or the consequential liability of the ancestral property must be determined even though the reason for which the debt was contracted by the father may be said to be constituting legal necessity for the same.

V. K. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT Babu Ram brought a suit against the present appellant Onkau and his deceased father Faqir Chand at also Ram Saran, the younger brother of Faqir Chand, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,480/- with interest pendente lite and future. The case of the plaintiff was that Faqir Chand was the Karta of the joint Hindu family constituted by him and the other two defendants and had taken a loan of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 1952 for needs of the family including maintenance of his minor brother, and son had mortgaged the house belonging to the family as security for the loan. The plaintiff claimed that in case the amount was not paid by the defendants, the same may be permitted to be recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property.

( 3 ) THE defendants, and, particularly the present appellant, contested the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the loan which hat been taken by Faqir Chand was not for legal necessity nor was it for the benefit of the estate and as such the mortgaged property, which was the property of the joint Hindu family, was not liable to be sold nor could any amount be recovered from the appellant and his uncle Ram Saran.

( 4 ) VARIOUS issues were framed by the trial court. The conclusion to which the trial court arrived was that the plaintiff, upon whom lay the burden, had failed to establish that Faqir Chand had taken the loan for any legal necessity for the benefit of the estate. As such, the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the amount from the defendants or by sale of the mortgaged property was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff during trial was that. Faqir Chand had to borrow the amount from him because he needed it for the purpose of the family business; that the amount was needed for the repair of the ancestral house and that it was also needed for the maintenance of the appellant as also his uncle Ram Sanin who were minors. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, concluded that Faqir Chand was not the Karta of any joint Hindu family consisting of his brother Ram Saran who had separated prior to the year 1952. As such, according to the trial court, the share of Ram Saran in the property in suit could not be held liable for repayment of any loan which might have been taken by Faqir Chand. The finding also was that the plaintiff had failed to establish that there was any necessity for Faqir Chand to borrow any amount for the purpose of any family business or for effecting repairs to the house or even for maintenance of any minors in the family. The suit was, consequently, dismissed by it.

( 6 ) IN an appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the lower appellate court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court to the effect that there was no joint Hindu family which included Ram saran and of which Faqir Chand was the Karta in the year 1952, It, therefore, also affirmed the conclusion of the trial court that the share of Ram Saran could not be made liable for any loan which might have been taken by Faqir Chand. The conclusion of the lower appellate Court was that Faqir Chand and his son Onkar, the present appellant, had 1/3rd share in the property. This share, according to the lower appellate Court, could be held liable for the repayment of the loan taken by Faqir Chand if the amount had been taken for legal necessity of the family or for the benefit of the estate. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court in this respect. It held that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing the necessity for the loan arising, at least, on account of the need for the maintenance of the present appellant who was a minor. The appellate Court proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the debt had been contracted by Faqir Chand for any immoral purpose. No clear finding was, however, recorded by the trial court about the fact as to whether Faqir Chand needed the mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document