1. The plaintiff sued the father and sons of his deceased debtor on foot of a promissory note. It is admitted that Vishnu Ram debtor and the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family. The learned Judge has not decided that the debt was incurred on behalf of the family by Vishnu Ram for the benefit of the family. He has, however, held that the debt was not tainted with immorality, so it would be the pious duty of the sons to pay it. The father, however, cannot be held liable. A decree in terms of Section 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be passed against the sons.
2. A question was raised in this Court whether liability such as is enunciated in Section 53 would arise out of a joint family property in the hands of the minor sons to pay the debt. In my opinion that question does not arise in original proceedings prior to the passing of the decree. A decree may be passed under the provisions of Section 52, and it will be for the execution department to decide whether the joint family property is such as would be liable under the Hindu Law for the payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor.
3. I set aside the decree of the trial Court and pass a decree against Lallu and Bachchoo, defendants, under the guardianship of Krishna Ram, for the payment of the sum claimed in the plaint as legal representatives of Vishnu Ram out of the property of the deceased. The question whether the joint family property in their hands would be liable under Section 53 for the payment of the debt is a question that is kept pending to be decided in the execution department.
4. Parties shall bear their own costs here. In the trial Court the plaintiff will recover his costs, which will be included in the decree, from the defendants Lallu and Bachchoo minors.