JUDGMENT
Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a three-fourth share in certain property was not liable to attachment and sale in. execution of a simple money-decree obtained by the predecessor-in-title of the defendant-decree-holder against the father of the plaintiffs. The allegation was that the father of the plaintiffs being alive the pious obi gallon of the son to pay up their father’s debt did not arise and their share in the family property was not liable to sale. The First Court decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has, basing its judgment on the Privy Council case of Sripat Singh Dugar v. Prodyot Kumar Tagora 39 Ind. Cas. 252 : 44 C. 524 : 44 I.A. 1 : 32 M.L.J. 133 : 15 A.L.J. 147 : (1917) M.W.N. 193 : 21 C.W.N. 442 : 25 C.L.J. 220 : 21 M.L.T. 222 : 19 Bom. L.R. 290 (P.C.), refused to follow the dictum of the Privy Council in the case of Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 437 : 44 I.A. 126 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : P.L.W. 557 : 15 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. L.R. 498 : 26 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 (P.C.) to the eject that the pious obligation of tiie sons to pay their father’s debt does not arise till after the death of their father. So far as this Court is concerned the point is covered by the authority of a Division Bench in Sheodhan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh 64 Ind. Cas. 75 : 43 A. 496 : 19 A.L.J. 431 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A.) 80 : (1922) A.I.R. (A) 323. The case of Dilip Narain Singh v. Parmaoti Bibi 67 Ind. Cas. 931 : 42 A. 58 : 17 A.L.J. 982, to which my attention has been drawn by the respondents is distinguishable because it does not appear from the report whether the to the’ was alive or not audit is clcr th.it in that caie the property had been sold and had already passed out of the family. Of course different considerations would arise in cases where the property ha; pissed out ft the family and in cases where the property has not so passed out: see Chandradeo Singh v. Mata Prasad 1 Ind. Cas. 479 : 31 A. 176 : 6 A.L.J. 263. Sitting as a Single Judge I am bound by the ruling in Sheodhan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh 64 Ind. Cas. 75 : 43 A. 496 : 19 A.L.J. 431 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A.) 80 : (1922) A.I.R. (A) 323, which is exactly in point. I, therefore, allow t is appeal, set a side the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.
