JUDGMENT :- Sri H.S. Nigam, learned counsel for lie plaintiff appellants, has sought to raise an interesting point in support of this appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the debt having been incurred by the major members of the joint Hindu family for the purpose of the marriage of a minor member would not be binding on the joint Hindu family as the marriage of a minor being prohibited by virtue of the provisions of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, the debt would be for illegal purposes and not for legal necessity. Reliance has been placed on Tattya Mohyaji Dhomse v. Rabha Dadaji Dhomse, AIR 1953 Bom 273, Rambhau Ganjaram v. Rajaram Laxman, AIR 1956 Bom 250 and Hansraj Bhuteria v. Askaran Bhuteria, AIR 1941 Cal 244. Learned counsel for either party at the bar were not able to cite any case decided by the Allahabad High Court on the subject.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Daulatram and Ghanshyam, second and third defendants in the suit giving rise to this appeal, executed a simple mortgage on 19-4-1952 in favour of Smt. Naraini Devi, the first defendant in the suit, for securing a loan advanced by the mortgagee for the purpose of marriage of Horilal, a minor brothe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document