1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover money payable to them under an indemnity given to their predecessor-in-title by the father of the appellant. It appears that Murli Manohar and two others executed a sale-deed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. That sale deed contained a provision to the effect that in the event of any claim being asserted and proved, and in the event of any defect being found in the title of the vendors, the purchaser shall have a right to realise the consideration money from the vendors or their heirs and legal representatives together with damages. In subsequent litigation it was held that two of the vendors were not competent to sell the property beyond the term of their lives and in consequence of this the purchaser was deprived of a part of the property. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present suit.
2. The only question is whether the defendant-appellant, the son of Murli Manohur, is liable to discharge the liability created by his father by the indemnity clause, and whether that debt can be realised from the ancestral property in the hands of the appellant.
3. It cannot be said that the debt incurred by Murli Manohar was tainted with immorality. Consequently it is the pious duty of his son to pay that debt, and for the discharge of this pious duty the ancestral property in his hands is liable. The view of the Court below is, therefore, right: We dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.
4. Appeal dismissed.