https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289029 The court held that sons are not liable for the repayment of a loan contracted by the father for a new business unless the transaction was for the benefit of the family and estate or supported by legal necessity. Regarding the appropriation of payment towards the mortgage debt, the court decided that the payment of Rs. 3,000 should be split proportionately: Rs. 2,000 towards the secured debt and Rs. 1,000 towards the unsecured debt. en-us Wed, 03 Oct 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:39:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289029 The court held that sons are not liable for the repayment of a loan contracted by the father for a new business unless the transaction was for the benefit of the family and estate or supported by legal necessity. Regarding the appropriation of payment towards the mortgage debt, the court decided that the payment of Rs. 3,000 should be split proportionately: Rs. 2,000 towards the secured debt and Rs. 1,000 towards the unsecured debt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Oct 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289029