Pious obligation and execution sale principles continue after partition where the father's just debt is not immoral or illegal.

A father's negligent liability as managing director of a co-operative bank was treated as a just debt, not an avyavaharika debt, because it was neither immoral nor illegal; the sons remained bound. The note also states that a Hindu son's pious obligation to discharge the father's just debts continues after partition or severance of status unless the debt is immoral or arrangements for payment were made at partition, so execution was not defeated by intervening partition. On the sale under section 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the extent of property sold depended on what was actually intended and proclaimed for sale; on the documents, the whole bungalow passed, not merely the father's fractional interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the father's liability for negligence as managing director of a co-operative bank was an avyavaharika debt so as not to bind the sons; (ii) whether partition or severance of status before sale prevented the creditor from proceeding against the sons' share and what passed in a sale under section 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Issue (i): Whether the father's liability for negligence as managing director of a co-operative bank was an avyavaharika debt so as not to bind the sons.

Analysis: The expression avyavaharika was treated as meaning a debt repugnant to good morals or otherwise not justifiable in law. An adjudication recorded in earlier proceedings was held not to be evidence of the truth of the underlying facts for the present controversy, and section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was applied to exclude reliance on it for that purpose. On the facts, the liability arose from negligent discharge of duties in a commercial institution and did not amount to a debt for an immoral or illegal purpose.

Conclusion: The debt was not avyavaharika and it remained binding on the sons.

Issue (ii): Whether partition or severance of status before sale prevented the creditor from proceeding against the sons' share and what passed in a sale under section 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Analysis: The liability of Hindu sons to discharge a father's just debts was held to rest on the pious obligation doctrine and to continue even after partition, unless the debt was immoral or illegal or arrangements had been made for its payment at partition. The creditor's right in execution therefore was not defeated merely because partition intervened after decree or during execution. The question under section 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was treated as one of fact, to be determined from the notices, proclamation, confirmation and sale certificate, namely what estate was put up, what the court intended to sell, and what the purchaser intended to buy. On the documents, the whole bungalow and not merely the father's fractional interest was sold.

Conclusion: Partition did not protect the sons' share, and the sale validly passed the whole property sold in execution.

Final Conclusion: The sons could not avoid the execution sale on the grounds urged, because the father's liability was a binding debt and the pious obligation of the sons continued notwithstanding partition; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Hindu son's pious obligation to discharge his father's just debts continues after partition, and in execution the extent of the interest sold depends on what the court in fact intended to sell and the purchaser intended to buy, not merely on the form of the statutory expression used in the sale proceedings.

---