JUDGMENT

Banerji and Richards, JJ. - The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent to recover money due upon eight mortgage bonds by sale of the property hypothecated in each bond. There were two brothers, Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh, who formed members of a joint Hindu family. A portion of the family property was recorded in the name of their mother Indar Kunwar and for this reason she joined her sons in executing some of the bonds. Of the eight bonds in suit two were executed by Mahtab Singh alone; two by Mahtab Singh and Indar Kunwar; one by Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh; another by Rup Singh and Indar Kunwar; another by Rup Singh, Mahtab Singh, and Indar Kunwar, and one by Rup Singh and Indar Kunwar. Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh being dead, the suit was brought against their sons, who disputed the claim mainly on the ground that the debts in respect of which the eight bonds were executed had been incurred by Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh for immoral purposes, and that the interests of the sons in the family property were not therefore liable. This plea was overruled by the Court below, which was of opinion that it had not been proved that the debts were tainted with immorality. That Court accordingly made a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Its is admitted that the decree a framed is not strictly accurate. It purports to direct the sale of all the property mortgaged in all the eight bonds for the total amount secured by those bonds, whereas the property mortgaged in each bond was liable only for the amount of that bond. This is what the plaintiff claimed in his plaint. The learned advocate for the respondent concedes that in this respect the decree of the Court below must be varied,

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the sons of Rup Singh alone. The son of Mahtab Singh was submitted to the decree. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that it has been established that the debts in question were incurred for immoral purposes, except the amount of one bond, namely, that for Rs. 400, dated the 25th of Match 1898. In regard to the amount of that bond it has been shown that it was borrowed for payment of Government revenue, which was actually paid, and Mr. Wallach fairly concedes that as regards this bond he can urge nothing on behalf of the appellants.

3. As for the last four bonds, which were executed by Mahtab Singh, and to two of which his mother Indar Kunwar was a party, the son of Mahtab Singh has taken no exception, but, as said above, the decree must be varied to this extent that it should direct that the amount of those bonds should be recovered by sale of the property hypothecated in each of them, so that when the decree is so varied the appellants will have no reason to complain.

4. There remain then the bond dated the 5th of June 1896 for Rs. 2,400, that dated the 22nd of April 1897 for Rs. 900 and that dated the 25th of April 1897 for Rs. 200. As to these the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that it was for the plaintiff to establish that the debts were incurred for family necessities and that the plaintiff made such inquiries as would lead a reasonable man to believe that the money was required for purposes of the family or for payment of antecedent debts which it would be the pious duty of a Hindu son to discharge. For this contention he relies on a recent ruling of a Bench of this Court in Makaraj Singh v. Balwant Singh ILR (1906) All. 506, and specially on the following passage in the judgment at page 541: "We may say in passing that in a case in which a creditor is endeavouring to establish a claim under a simple hypothecation bond given by a Hindu father, having a limited interest only, against his sons, it appears to us to be not unreasonable to require proof on the part of the creditor that before he entered into the transaction he at least made such reasonable inquiries as would satisfy a prudent lender that the money was required to pay off an antecedent debt or