1. The onus of proving that the debts, to discharge which a mortgage was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant, the father of the 2nd defendant, were incurred for immoral or illegal purposes, is on the 2nd defendant. What has been established is that the 1st defendant was keeping a woman, before the debts in question were incurred, that is, prior to 1903 The woman herself, called Nagaratnam, has given evidence and she says that her expenses were paid by the 1st defendant, that he made jewels for her and gave her money to carry on money-lending. Some promissory notes (Exhibits I to IV) were adduced in evidence, they were executed jointly by the 1st defendant and Nagaratnam but they were all subsequent to 1906, in which year the last items of the debts (Exhibits C and Y) were incurred. There is also evidence that Nagaratnam lent Rs. 1,000 on mortgage to one Venkatakrishnasami Naidu in 1910. That was long subsequent to the present transaction. Beyond this, there is no evidence to connect the incurring of the debts with any immoral purpose. On the other hand, the 1st defendant had a net income of about Rs. 1000 a year and had three sons, a wife and a daughter to maintain. He married two of his daughters, though there is no evidence to show how the expenses of the marriage were met.
2. The evidence in this case only established that the 1st defendant was keeping a concubine and to that extent he must have incurred some additional expense. No direct connection, however, is established between these debts and any immoral or illegal purpose, and, according to the rulings, it is necessary for a son who seeks exemption from liability to establish that. The rulings of the Privy Council in Suraj Bansi Koer v. Sheo Pershad Singh 5 C 148 (P.C.): 2 Ind. Dec. 705; Bhagbut Pershad Singh v. Girja Koer 15 C. 717 (P.C.) .; Chintamanrav Mehendale v. Kashinath 14 B 320 and Dattatraya Vishnu v. Vithnu Narayan 36 M.L.J.296 make this position clear. We have also a resent decision of this Court in Dhulipallia Buchayya v. Kuppa Venkatakrishnayya 36 M.L.J. 296, where this view of the law was adopted. It would no doubt be difficult in many cases to prove that a particular debt was inanrred for some specific immoral or illegal purpose and it may be sufficient if the evidence is such that the Court would be in a position to infer that the debt incurred by the father must have been inuurred for immoral purposes. That seems to be the principle underlying the decision in Bhagbut Perthad Singh v. Girja Koer 15 C. 717 (P.C.) .. The facts of this case fall short of any such proof. The appeal must be dismissed with costs. Time for redemption is extended by six month.