S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar, dated 8-10-71 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of the contract dated 22-1-65 and the contract dated 4-2-66.
2. Shorn of all details, the relevant fasts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: On 22-1-65 Pathanasingh entered into an agreement to sell 9 bighas of land situated in Chak 4 HMH to the plaintiff respondents for a sum of Rs. 10,350/- and received a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money. This agreement was subsequently registered and a further sum of Rs. 7850/- was paid to the vendee at the time of the registration of the agreement. The remaining amount of Rs. 2000/- was paid to the vendor on 9-6-65. On 4-2-66 Pathanasingh entered into another agreement to sell six bighas of land situated in the same Chak for a sum of Rs. 8400/-. The sale-price of this agreement was also paid in full as in the case of the first agreement. One of the conditions of sa e was to obtain permission from the Government to sell the aforesaid lands as both of them were granted to Pathanasingh on account of his being a displaced person. It appears that Pathanasingh did not procure the requisite permission from the Government and the plaintiffs had to file the present suit for specific performance of both the contracts against Pathanasingh and his son. Satnamsingh. In the plaint, it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and to get the sale-deeds registered. Defendant Pathanasingh died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives Gurnamsingh and Mst. Joti were impleaded besides Satnam Singh who was already on the record. Various pleas were raised in defence. The important plea with which we are concerned in this apeal is that the disputed lands were allotted not to Pathanasingh but to all the members of the family including Pathanasingh. It was pleaded that Pathana Singh alone had no authority to enter into an agreement to sell the lands which belonged to the joint Hindu family. It was also pleaded that there were no debts to pay and that there was no legal necessity to sell the property. The learned Additional District Judge pn consideration of the evidence led by the parties found that the disputed lands were so ey allotted to Pathanasingh. He further held that the transactions of sale were valid as Pathana Singh was in need of money and he wanted to discharge the mortgage debts and also wanted to make payment of instalments of land. The learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit for specific performance. The defendants have now come up in apeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments to two points only, namely that the lower court committed gross error in holding that the lands in dispute were allotted solely to Pathanasingh and that the transactions were entered into by Pathanasingh for legal necessity.
4. In my opinion, none of the contentions has any force. In is quite clear from the allotment certificate Ex. A/2 that the lands in dispute were allotted solely in the name of Pathanasingh, No. doub, Ex. A/2 contains the names of the other members of the family of the allottee but that does not mean that the lands were allotted to all of them. A careful reading of the allotment certificate shows that the names of the other members of the family were mentioned therein in order to show that none of them was allotted any land else where. This is clearly borne out from the affidavit attached below the allotment certificate in which Pathanasingh had declared that the above stated members or dependents had no been allotted lands else where and further that all of them including Pathanasingh were genuine displaced persons. Similarly, in the Basic Register Ex. A/1, Pathanasingh has been mentioned as the person to whom the land has been allotted. There is no other evidence on the record which goes to show that Pathanasing was not the allottee but the land was allotted to all the members of his family. Moreover, Pathanasingh in the agreement clearly described himself to be the owner of the land. There is thus no force in the argument that Pathanasingh was not the sole allottee and the lands sold were allotted to all the members of his family.
5. In view of the finding on point No. 1, it is not necessary to go into the second point, for, if Pathanasingh was the sole owner of the property, he had every right to alienate it in whatever manner he liked. However, it is well settled that the father of a joint Hindu family may sell or mortgage joint family property including the son's interest therein to discharge a debt contracted by him for his personal benefit and such alienation binds the son provided the debt was antecedent to the alienation and that it was not incurred for immoral purpose. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the two lands which Pathanasingh agreed to sell had been mortgaged by him prior to the agreements of sale entered, into by him. There is again no dispute that Pathana Singh was to pay off certain instalments to the Govt. in consideration of the allotment made in his favour. There was thus antecedent debt and it has neither been alleged nor proved that the antecedent debt was contracted by the father for immoral or illegal purpose and that the alienee had notice that the antecedent debt was so contracted. With whatever angle the case is viewed, the decree for specific petfoimance of the contracts passed by the lower court cannot be assailed.
6. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs.