High CourtsSingle Bench(1917) 03 PAT CK 0011

Chuman Chaudhury and Others vs Musammat Ram Sunder Chaudhurain and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 22 March 1917 · Citation: AIR 1917 Patna 355 : 39 Ind. Cas. 861

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chapman, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 370 words

Chapman, J.—This appeal arises cut of a suit on a mortgage-bond executed by one Ramai Choudhury. Ramai Chaudhury is dead. The mortgage-debt was Rs. 175, of which Rs. 52 was borrowed for necessary family expenses; Rs. 43, for costs of the defence in a criminal case in which Ramai was convicted; and Rs. 80, to pay the fines imposed upon two persons accused on the same charge.

2.

In appeal the District Judge affirmed the decree of the Munsif which had been given in respect only of the first item of Rs. 52. The plaintiffs appeal to this Court. The heirs of Ramai Choudhury with whom this Court is concerned at present, are his daughter-in-law and his son. So far as the daughter-in-law is concerned, she, of course, has no interest in the property, there being a surviving son. The question, therefore, that I have to consider is whether under the Hindu Law there is a pious duty imposed upon a son to pay the costs incurred by his father in defending himself upon a criminal charge upon which he has been convicted. I am of opinion that it is the pious duty of the son to pay such a debt, especially as in this case the offence charged was not one involving any moral turpitude. The father was convicted of an assault committed by him in asserting his right to a portion of the family property. In regard to Rs. 80 spent on paying the fines of the two persons who had committed the offence together with the father, I am of opinion that it is impossible to say that it is the pious duty of the son to repay the money borrowed for the purposes of paying the fines of the co-accused. The Mitakshara expressly excludes from the duties that the son should pay unpaid fines. The result is that the appeal succeeds in part. The plaintiffs are entitled to the addition of the sum of Rs. 43 to the principal of the debt and to a proportionate increase in the interest to be allowed. The appeal in so far as it relates to the Rs. 80 is dismissed. I direct that costs be proportionate throughout the proceedings.