The Midnapur Zamindary Company Ltd. vs Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy on 7 April, 1924
6. The previous suit was brought by the minor sons for partition of the family property alleging that the decree No. 371 of 1923 against Mathura Prasad was not binding against them inasmuch as the debt had been incurred without any family necessity. The defence was that the debt was binding on the sons because it was not tainted with immorality and further that the plaintiffs could not maintain the suit for partition of a part of the family property. The learned Subordinate Judge decided both these issues against the plaintiffs holding that the debt not having been contracted for an immoral purpose the whole estate was liable for the debt in execution of the decree, and that the suit as brought was not maintainable. For these reasons he held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief and he dismissed the suit. If it were necessary to rely upon this judgment we might have been inclined to hold that the view of the Court below that the judgment did not operate as res judicata was not correct. We may refer to the case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ld. v. Naresh Narayan Roy A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 144. The point as to the liability of the whole estate for the debt was directly raised and decided and was one of the grounds for the dismissal of the suit. It is immaterial to consider which finding was absolutely necessary or came first in strict logical sequence.