1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 201-8-0 due to her on three simple mortgage-bonds making as parties one Ramrao and his three sons and a third party who was not connected with the family and who was in possession of a part of the land. It was found that the third bond dated 11th August 1917 passed by the first defendant was not properly attested and, therefore, could not be admitted as a mortgage. The learned Judge, however, in the Trial Court held that the personal debt of the father was binding on the sons (defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5) and so he made defendant No. 2 personally liable. In appeal the District Judge considered that the sons as a pious duty were bound to pay the debt of their father. Both the Courts have forgotten that the pious obligation of sons to pay their fathers debt only arises at the death of their father. There is no pious duty or obligation during the lifetime of the father to pay whatever debt the father may incur. Defendants Nos. 2 4, and 5 must be relieved from paying four candies of rice in satisfaction of the interest due upon the personal debt incurred by defendant No. 1 on nth August 1917. Although the father and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 have not appealed, they can get the advantage of this decree under Order XLI, Rule 33.
2. With regard to the mortgages which have been proved the District Judge has directed, according to the terms of the deeds, that defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 ami 5 should pay to the plaintiff 18 candies of clean Bentigi rice within six months. It is unusual in a decree in a mortgage suit to direct interest should be paid in kind instead of in money. We think that the defendants in this case ought to have an opportunity of tendering within six months from the time these proceedings reach the lower Court, the market price of 18 candies of rice at the date of payment or tender To this extent the appeal will be allowed with costs.