1. We do not think that the District Judge was right in holding that there was no debt due by the father under the mortgage-decree because the personal remedy against him under that decree had become barred. The debt continued, though its recovery in a way had become barred. There was, in this view, an antecedent debt at the time when the sale which the plaintiff now seeks to set aside took place. That being so, the son's interest is liable for the father's debt, as held by the Privy Council in Bhagbut Pershad Singh v. Girja Koer 15 C.P 717 : 15 I.A. 97 which is not noticed by the District Judge. That decree was re-affirmed by the Privy Council, Mahabir Pershad v. Mohesuar Nath Sahai 17 C.P 584 : 17 I.A. 11. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Venkataramannya Pantulu v. Venkataramana Doss Pantulu 29 M.K 200 : 1 M.L.T. 28 : 16 M.L.J. 69 on which the District Judge relies, is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Full Bench refers to the decision in Bhagbut Pershad Singh v. Girija Koer 15 C.K 717 : 15 I.A. 97 and points out that, in that case, the debt was in fact antecedent in the sense that it existed prior to the sale.
2. We must hold that the present case comes within the principles laid down by the Privy Council in the cases we have referred to, and, reversing the decree of the District Judge, we restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.