Avyavaharika Hindu Law The term 'Avyavaharika' has been variously translated as being that which is not lawful or what is not just or what is not admissible under the law or under normal conditions. Colebrooke translated it as "a debt for a cause repugnant to good morals". There is another track of decision which has translated it as meaning "a debt which is not supported as valid by legal arguments". The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Hem Raj v. Khem Chand, ,AIR 1943 PC 142 (145) held that he translation of the term as given by Colebrooke makes the nearest approach to the true conception of the term used in the 'Smrithis' texts and may well be taken to represent its correct meaning and that it did not admit of a more precise definition. In Toshanpal Singh v. District Judge Agra, (AIR 1934 PC 238) the Judicial Committee held that drawings of monies for unauthorized purposes, which amounted to criminal breach of trust under S. 405 of the Indian Penal Code, were not binding on the sons, but a civil debt arising on account of the receipt of monies by the father which were not accounted for could not be termed 'Avyavaharika'. In the instant case now the appellants attempted to prove that the debt fell within the term 'Avyavaharika' by relying upon the payment order and the findings given by the Deputy Registrar in the payment order where the liability was inter alia based on a breach of trust, any opinion given in the order of the Deputy Registrar as to the nature of the liability of defendant No. 1 M.B. Jakati cannot be used as evidence in the present case to determine whether the debt was 'Avyavaharika' or otherwise. The order is not admissible to prove the truth of the facts therein stated and except that it may be relevant to prove the existence of the judgment itself, it will not be admissible in evidence. Section 43 of the Evidence Act, the principle of which is, that judgments excepting those upon questions of public and general interest, judgment in rem or when necessary to prove the existence of a judgment, order or decree, which may be a fact in issue are irrelevant. It was then submitted that the pleadings of respondent No. 1 himself show that the debt was of an immoral or illegal nature. In his written statement, respondent No. 1 had pleaded that the liquidator of the Bank had charged defendant No. 1 with misfeasance because he was grossly negligent in the discharge of his duty and responsibility as managing director and that after a thorough enquiry the Deputy Registrar held misfeasance proved and ordered a contribution of Rs.15,100 by him. As we have said above the translation given by Colebrooke of the term 'Avyavaharika' is the nearest approach to its true concept i.e., "any debt for a cause repugnant to good morals". The managing director of a Bank of the position of defendant No. 1 who should have been more vigilant in investing the monies of the Bank cannot be said to have incurred the liability for a cause "repugnant to good morals". We are unable to subscribe to the proposition that in the modern age with its complex institutions of Banks and Joint Stock Companies governed by many technicalities and complex system of laws the liability such as has arisen in the present case could be called 'Avyavaharika.' The debt was therefore binding on the sons. (S.M. Jakati v. S.M. Borkar, AIR 1959 SC 282 (286)