Chitty subscription liability arises only on default, not on prize receipt; security bond alone cannot create antecedent debt.

A chitty subscriber's obligation to pay future subscriptions arises from the chitty contract and variola, not from receipt of the prized amount or execution of a security bond. The bond secures performance only and does not itself create a fresh debt; liability arises when an instalment falls due and remains unpaid. On that basis, the amount covered by the bond could not be treated as antecedent debt for supporting a Hindu father's alienation of ancestral property. The earlier view treating the prize amount and bond as creating an immediate debtor-creditor relationship was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prized subscriber in a chitty becomes indebted to the foreman merely because he receives the prize amount and executes a security bond for future subscriptions. (ii) Whether the amount represented by such security bond can be treated as an antecedent debt so as to support the alienation of ancestral property by a Hindu father.

Issue (i): Whether a prized subscriber in a chitty becomes indebted to the foreman merely because he receives the prize amount and executes a security bond for future subscriptions.

Analysis: The obligation to pay future subscriptions arises from the chitty contract and the variola, not from receipt of the prize amount. The statutory scheme of the chitty legislation also treats the prized subscriber's duty to pay future subscriptions as a continuing contractual obligation, with security taken only to secure performance. Receipt of the prize amount is not a loan and the security bond does not create a fresh debt; liability arises only when an instalment falls due and is not paid.

Conclusion: No debt due to the foreman arises merely by reason of receipt of the prize amount or execution of the security bond.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount represented by such security bond can be treated as an antecedent debt so as to support the alienation of ancestral property by a Hindu father.

Analysis: Since the chitty security bond did not create a debt, the amount covered by it could not be treated as antecedent debt. The authority of a Hindu father to bind sons' interests by alienating ancestral property extends to antecedent debts only, and the alienation can be upheld on that ground only if the consideration substantially represents such debt. Here, the amount referable to the chitty bond was not antecedent debt, so that part of the consideration could not sustain the sale on that footing.

Conclusion: The amount represented by the chitty security bond was not antecedent debt and could not support the alienation on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The earlier view treating the prize amount and security bond as creating an immediate debtor-creditor relationship was not accepted, and the sale deed could not be upheld as one executed to discharge antecedent debt; the matter was sent back for fresh consideration on family necessity.

Ratio Decidendi: In a chitty, the subscriber's liability for future subscriptions arises from the contract and becomes a debt only on default of an instalment, not on receipt of the prize amount or execution of the security bond.

---