AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.The father of the appellant in these two appeals brought a suit in forma pauperis as next friend of one of the appellants to establish his adoption
and recover possession of property. The alleged adoption was found to be false, the suit was dismissed, and the father of the appellants was
directed, u/s 440, CPC to pay the costs due to Government. Now the reason why the appellants'' father was made liable for these costs was that
he had been guilty of what was certainly an immoral act in bringing a suit which he must have known to be false. The liability to pay the costs was
clearly imposed as a penalty for his misconduct and the debt thus incurred is tainted with immorality and the sons are not bound to pay. Again
under Hindu Law, among debts which sons are not bound to pay are fines (see Mayne''S Hindu Law-, 7th edition, page 389) and in this case the
liability imposed upon the appellant''s father may also be regarded as in the nature of a fine. We, therefore, allow these appeals and give the
plaintiffs a decree as prayed for, with costs throughout.