JUDGMENT

A. Banerji, J. - This is an appeal by the defendants. The State of U. P. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,000/- against the defendants-appellants. Defendants father Bikram Singh had embezzled Government money to the tune of Rs. 45,914/15/- by preparing false and fictitious bills and registers. On the matter being reported to the Police, Bikram Singh and one Basheswari Nandan were prosecuted and also convicted. Bikram Singh subsequently died and left assets which came to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was on this basis that the plaintiff claimed recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the assets of Bikram Singh in the hands of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In their defence, they denied the plaintiff case. They also pleaded that they had not inherited any property of their father and what was given to them was the ancestral joint Hindu Family Property. They further pleaded that this property was not liable for the debts of Bikram Singh which were in the nature of immoral debts. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by time. Defendant No. 3 Basheswar Nandan did not contest the suit.

2. The trial court held that the defendants had received assets from their father Bikram Singh and were liable to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the extent of the assets of their father received by them. The suit was held to be within time and the trial Court decreed it as prayed. An appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court which was also dismissed.

3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the debt of Bikram Singh was in the nature of an Avyavaharika debt. It was a debt incurred by their father for an immoral purpose, namely, it arose out of a criminal act of embezzlement of Government money. It is a pious obligation of every Hindu son to pay the debts of bis father. There is, however, an exception to this rule that if the debt is immoral debt, then the sons are not liable to pay the same. This view was clearly expounded in the case of Brij Narain v. Mangal Prasad, I.L.R. Vol. XLVI Alld. Series 95. In the above case, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, upon a consideration of the authorities, laid down five propositions as regards the debts incurred by a father and the liability of the sons. For the purpose of this case, it will only be necessary to refer to the second proposition which reads as below :-

"(2) If he is the father, and the other members are his sons, he may, by incurring debt, so long as it is not for an immoral purpose, lay the estate open to be taken in execution proceedings upon a decree for payment for that debt."

4. The proposition of law has held the field for over fifty years now. The view was approved and reiterated in the case of Panna Lal v. Mst. Naraini, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 170, and again in Virdhachalam Pillai v. Chaldean Syrian Bank Limited, Trichur, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1425.

5. The above proposition makes it clear that if the debt is immoral, then the sons cannot be saddled with the debt nor can it be realised from them. This brings to the question as to whether in the present case the debt was `AVYAVAHARIKA'. In Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th Edition, Para 298, it is stated that the sons, grandsons and great-grand-sons are bound to pay all debts contracted by the father, grand-father or great grandfather except the debts enumerated therein. The eighth item reads as below :-

"(8) Any debt which its avayavaharika, which is rendered by Colebrooke as equivalent to a debt for a cause repugnant to good morals".

6. If the debt is one which is repugnant to good Morals, it will amount to an avyavaharika debt. The question, therefore, that arises in this case is whether the amounts which were taken away by Bikram Singh was in the nature of an avayavaharika debt. The sums of money which Bikram Singh had taken away was not due to him. He had not taken them away under any legal or valid order. He had surreptitiously and illegally obtained the money by forging bills and registers. These acts clearl