The main legal principle established in the judgment is the limitation on the creditors' right to execute a decree against the son's share obtained through partition, emphasizing the son's pious obligation to pay his father's debts and the termination of the father's authority to sell the son's share as a consequence of the partition.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted under Order XXI, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, to establish the plaintiff's right to a house, and for a declaration that the house is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree obtained by the defendants against the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, Motilal, his father, formed a joint family which was dissolved by a partition effected between them on April 6, 1927. As a result of the partition a moiety of the house in suit fell to the share of the plaintiff and the other moiety to that of his father, but the plaintiff became the owner of the whole house by purchasing his father's half share by a registered sale deed on the same day as the partition for Rs. 5,000. The appellant, firm Govindram Dwarkadas and respondent No. 3 firm Goverdhandas Lakhmidas, obtained simple money decrees against the plaintiff's father in two separate suits filed by them in the year 1928 subsequent to partition, and in execution of their respective decrees they attached the house in suit. The plaintiff filed an objection to the attachment but it was rejected by the executing Court. Accordingly he filed the suit out of which this appeal arises or establishing his right to the house as mentioned already. The suit was resisted by his father's judgment creditors on the ground that the partition and the sale by the father of his half share in the house to the son were nominal and colourable transactions as well as fraudulent having been intended to delay and defeat the creditors; The lower Court negatived the defendants plea and decreed the suit in plaintiffs favour. One of the two judgment-creditors has preferred this appeal.

2. The important question of law which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the creditors of the father Who obtained decrees against him alone in suits to which the plaintiff was not made a party could enforce their decrees against the share which the plaintiff obtained as a consequence of partition effected before the suits. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that, in view of the son's pious obligation to pay his father's debts, the son's share is liable to be taken in execution even though the son was not impleaded in the creditors' suits against the father who was at the time admittedly separate from his son; Reference is made to Lalta Prasad v. Gajadhar Shukul, 1933 AIR(All) 235, Raghunandan Pershad v. Moti Ram,1929 AIR(Oudh) 406Jageshioar v. Manni Ram 2 Luck 561 : 101 Ind. Cas. 907 : 4 CWN 408 : AIR Oudh 185 and Radhakrishen Tolaram v. Jamnadas Radhomal, 1931 AIR(Sind) 84, as authorities for the proposition contended for by the appellant. In Laita Prasad v. Gajadhar Shukul, 1933 AIR(All) 235 the facts were that a Hindu who was the manager of a joint family consisting of himself his sons, nephew and grand-nephew, incurred debt on a bond. The creditors filed a suit against all of them. The debt was of the to be not justified by legal necessity so as to be binding on the family as a wrote and the suit was dismissed against the nephew and grand-nephew but decree against the manager and his son's were held to be under a pious obligation to pay their father's debts. On appeal by the sons it was contended that the doctrine of pious obligation to pay thee father's debts came into play only (1) if he was not the manager, and (2) if besides the sons there were other members of the family who were not under any such pious, obligation. Reference was made to Brij Nardin v. Mangal Prasad, 1924 AIR(PC) 50, Binda Prasad v. Raj Ballabh Sahai, 1926 AIR(All) 220, Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad, 1931 AIR(All) 512 and Subrammia Ayyar v. Sabapathy Aiyar (8). and the contention was sought to be sustained on the principle that the pious obligation of the sons is co-extensive with the right of the father to dispose of the family property in order to liquidate his debts and that, where the father is not competent to ali