Govinda Menon, J.-This is an appeal against the dismissal of O.S. No. 62 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore on the ground that the suit was barred under Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, as well as by limitation and further that even if there was no bar, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit against the present zamindar of Chundi in respect of the estate in his possession and that the debts contracted by the previous zamindar were not for purposes binding on the estate. In O.S. No. 106 of 1936 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Nellore, the appellant claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 8,031-4-9 under six headings of liability incurred by the defendant in that suit and which were payable to the appellant. They consisted of a sum of Rs. 2,000 claimed as damages for wrongful dismissal of the appellant from his position as Dewan of the Chundi estate in accordance with a contract, dated 31st December, 1935. The second item was a sum of Rs. 1,566-9-4 due to the appellant under two promissory notes which had been got endorsed in his favour by him for collection, the promissory notes being one for Rs. 1,250, dated 27th December, 1935 and another for Rs. 250, dated 30m December,. 1935, executed by the then zamindar to one Seshamma. The third item of the claim was a sum of Rs. 2,627-6-3 due under two promissory notes dated 31st December, 1935, executed by the zamindar in favour of one Sambayya for Rs. 1,670 and one Sambrajyamma for Rs. 800. These promissory notes were also endorsed over for collection in favour of the appellant. The fourth item was a sum of Rs. 1,155-4-5 due on a promissory note, dated 7th January, 1936, by the same zamindar in favour of one Y. Purushotham for Rs. 1,100. The fifth item was a sum of R. 207-0-9 due on a promissory note for Rs. 200 executed by the zamindar in favour of the appellant himself. The sixth and the last item was a sum of Rs. 475, being the arrears of salary due to him. Despite the suit being contested by the zamindar, the Subordinate Judge on the 19th August, 1937, passed a decree for the amount claimed in the plaint after deducting Rs. 850 out of the damages claimed. The sixth and the last item was a sum of Rs. 475, being the arrears of salary due to him. Despite the suit being contested by the zamindar, the Subordinate Judge on the 19th August, 1937, passed a decree for the amount claimed in the plaint after deducting Rs. 850 out of the damages claimed. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff claimed recovery of the amount not only from the then zamindar personally but also from the Chundi estate which is an impartible estate included in the schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904. Exhibit D-3 (a), the decree, directs the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of the sum of Rs. 7,181-4-9 with interest and costs. There was no decree against the estate. The zamindar died on 4th September, 1938, and as the present respondent, his son, was a minor, the Court of Wards took charge of the estate under section 10 of the Madras Court of Wards Act. The appellant, claimed the recovery of this amount from the estate in the hands of the Court of Wards and the Collector passed orders Exhibits P-3 and P-3 (a) by which portions of the amount decreed by the Civil Court were disallowed. The claim for damages to the extent of Rs. 1,150 allowed by the Civil Court was approved of by the Collector. So also was the sum of Rs. 475 being the arrears of salary. He disallowed the amounts due under the promissory note executed in favour of Seshamma as well as the promissory notes executed in favour of Sambayya and Sambrajyamma. With regard to the promissory note executed by the zamindar in favour of Y. Purushotham for a sum of Rs. 1,100, it was held that it cannot bind the impartible estate beyond the lifetime of the zamindar. The claim as regards the sum of Rs. 207 based on a promissory note for Rs. 200 being the money lent by the plaintiff for raising the attachment on the zamindar’s car was also disallowed. The appellant thereupon filed the present suit praying for the following relief:- “Declaring that the decree debt in O.S. No. 106 of 1936 on the file of the Sub-Court of Nellore less the sum of Rs. 200 being the money lent by the plaintiff for raising the attachment on the zamindar’s car was also disallowed. The appellant thereupon filed the present suit praying for the following relief:- “Declaring that the decree debt in O.S. No. 106 of 1936 on the file of the Sub-Court of Nellore less the sum of Rs. 2,235-1-10 being the amount calculated as due on the promissory note executed in favour of Seshamma, is binding and enforceable against the defendant therein and the Chundi estate in the hands of the Court of Wards.” The answer, to the claim given by the defendant was that these debts were not binding on the estate beyond the lifetime of the executant of the promissory notes and therefore the suit was not maintainable. Various other pleas were taken in the written statement, which formed the subject-matter of as many as seven issues in the suit. As stated already, the learned Judge held that the suit was not maintainable under issues 1, 4, 5 and 6. On the question whether the suit was barred by res judicata, the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that since the appellant had already filed a suit against the previous zamindar as well as the estate in his hands and since the decree passed in O.S. No. 106 of 1937 was only a personal decree against the zamindar, the present suit was not maintainable. The question is whether that view of the learned Judge is correct or not. The decision in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar1 is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant as an authority which is against the view taken by the lower Court. What happened there was this: A decree had been obtained against the holder of an impartible estate for a sum of money due to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 714 of 1911 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Dindigul. The zamindar died in 1917 and the decree was thereafter sought to be executed against the succeeding zamindar as the legal representative of the late zamindar and against the estate in his hands. The succeeding zamindar contended that the estate in his hands would not be liable for the payment of that debt and also that the matter could not be proceeded against in execution. The succeeding zamindar contended that the estate in his hands would not be liable for the payment of that debt and also that the matter could not be proceeded against in execution. The District Munsif agreed with the contention of the succeeding zamindar and referred the plaintiff therein to a fresh suit. But the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal held that the matter could be decided in execution. On a further appeal to this Court, Krishnan and Waller, JJ., were of the view that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was incorrect. The learned Judges say that the question could not be decided in execution because it is one of enforcing a new liability against the estate by proof that the debt was borrowed for the benefit of the estate. In such circumstances, the plaintiff’s remedy is to bring a new suit and after obtaining a declaration that the debt incurred by the previous zamindar for which a personal decree had been obtained against him, was binding on the impartible estate and the income that had accrued due from the impartible estate in the hands of the succeeding zamindar, to apply in execution of his decree and have the same executed against the property. The reasoning of the learned Judges comes to this; that in view of section 4 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act, it cannot be said that a zamindar can represent the estate and make it liable for debts incurred by him so as to enure beyond his lifetime. This decision was passed in December, 1923 and a quarter of a century has elapsed since then. Counsel on either side have not been able to show any authority which either accepted the principle decided by the learned Judges or dissented from their decision. Such being the case, -on the accepted notions of stare decisis we are bound to follow the Bench decision which has stood the test of time. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the observations which have been considered by us in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar 1 , are unnecessary and obiter for the decision of that particular case and cannot be followed as a binding authority. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the observations which have been considered by us in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar 1 , are unnecessary and obiter for the decision of that particular case and cannot be followed as a binding authority. He further contends that in the present case, it would have been possible for the decree-holder to have got a decree against the estate itself by making the previous zamindar alone a party, if he were able to show that the money was utilised for the necessities or the benefit of the estate. The argument is that if the present plaintiff could have got a valid decree under section 4 and got it executed against the estate during the lifetime of the zamindar, it necessarily follows that he having put in issue the question of the liability of the estate and the Court not having specifically declared that it was binding on the estate, it should be deemed that the claim had been rejected by the Court on a previous occasion, and, as such the estate now cannot be mulcted with this liability. The learned Judges in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar1 have in some way answered this contention. They have said that if the judgment-creditor plaintiff is able to show that the debt was for a sum of money borrowed for the benefit of the estate under section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act, the debt would be one binding on the impartible estate and the creditor would be entitled to enforce his debt as against the estate in the hands of the succeeding zamindar. They further observed that by proving that the debt was borrowed for the benefit of the zamindari, the zamindari does not become the assets of the late zamindar in the hands of the succeeding zamindar but the only thing that results is whether the plaintiff judgment-creditor will be able to enforce his debt against the impartible estate in the hands of the succeeding zamindar. We are of opinion that the principle enunciated in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar1 has to be applied to the facts of the present case. The judgment-debtor zamindar could not have represented the estate so as to make it liable beyond his lifetime. We are of opinion that the principle enunciated in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar1 has to be applied to the facts of the present case. The judgment-debtor zamindar could not have represented the estate so as to make it liable beyond his lifetime. The analogy of the manager of a joint Hindu family being sued for a debt due by him, and the family properties being made. liable for that amount cannot apply to the present case in view of section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act. In the case of a joint Hindu family, if a decree is obtained against the manager personally, the judgment-creditor is entitled to recover the same from the share of the manager by an attachment of the share and getting it sold. But in the case of an impartible estate, the holder, for the time being cannot have any share as such. All that the creditor can do is to realise the money by appointment of a receiver for the estate or by other means known to law during the lifetime of the judgment-debtor zamindar. If he is not able to realise the money during that period and wants to enforce the liability against the estate in the hands of the succeeding holder, in our opinion, he will have to get a declaration that the debt incurred by the previous zamindar was for and on behalf of the estate and therefore the estate is liable. This, as held in Immudipattam Bom-mayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar1, cannot be decided in execution, but only by a fresh declaratory suit. We should not be understood as stating that in all respects an impartible estate holder cannot represent the estate in litigation. It is only where his own acts are in question and when his borrowings are sought to be charged on the impartible property that he cannot represent the estate, so that the debt may bind the estate beyond his lifetime. It is only where his own acts are in question and when his borrowings are sought to be charged on the impartible property that he cannot represent the estate, so that the debt may bind the estate beyond his lifetime. Suppose, for example, there was a dispute as regards portions of the zamindari with a rival landholder and the zamindar for the time being contests the suit and a decision either way is passed, such a conclusion should be binding on the succeeding zamindar on the principle of res judicata; or in other words, in all cases where the action of the zamindar is one that could be impugned by the succeeding zamindar, it seems to us that the decree obtained against a zamindar who has himself created the debt, cannot be enforced in execution against the estate after his death. The Subordinate Judge seems to think that where an impartible estate holder incurs a debt, it is inconceivable that one suit could be filed against him based on a certain borrowing and another suit subsequently for a declaration that the same debt is binding on the impartible property. This is exactly what has been repelled in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar1. The distinction between the representative capacity of an impartible estate holder for transactions entered into by him for binding the estate beyond his lifetime and that where he represents the estate in other proceedings in which he has no personal estoppel against third parties is a real one; and we are of opinion that section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act clearly enunciates this view. For purposes of our present case it has to be said that an impartible estate holder stands on an equal footing with the manager of a joint Hindu family even though in the case of a manager of a joint Hindu family, he has a share in the properties which can be proceeded in execution and in the case of an impartible estate holder such a thing cannot be resorted to. Following the principles laid down in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar 1, we are of opinion that the suit as framed is maintainable. It is difficult to see how Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, has any application. Following the principles laid down in Immudipattam Bommayya Naicken Ayyan v. Subramania Ayyar 1, we are of opinion that the suit as framed is maintainable. It is difficult to see how Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, has any application. It is not as if there are different reliefs arising out of the same cause of action and therefore the plaintiff in the previous suit having abandoned one relief or not having obtained a decree regarding that relief, in a subsequent suit the same relief is prayed for. We feel that the cause of action against the previous holder for the recovery of money borrowed by him personally is different from the cause of action regarding the right to recover the amount from the estate, because the monies were borrowed for the necessities of the estate. As there are two causes of action and one of such causes of action has been put in issue in the previous suit, Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, cannot be said to be a bar for a subsequent suit on different cause of action. If the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover the money from the estate in the hands of the succeeding zamindar arises only after the death of the previous zamindar, his suit is said to be in time under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act and there is no question of bar at all. On the finding that the suit is maintainable, the question as to how far each of the debts is binding on the estate has to be considered. Since the Collector himself in Exhibits P-3 and P-3 (a) has admitted the liability regarding damages for wrongful dismissal to the extent of Rs. 1,150 and since the sum of Rs. 475 being the arrears of salary also has eenadmitted, we need not go into that question now. With regard to the promissory notes executed in favour of Seshamma and endorsed in favour of the plaintiff, Exhibits D-5 and D-5(a), and which had been disallowed as not binding on the estate by the Collector, though that was one of the items for decision by the lower Court, here in appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has not chosen to argue its binding nature and has given up that part of his case. We are therefore concerned with only three items, viz., the amounts due under the promissory note Exhibits P-2 and P-2(a) in favour of Sambayya and Sambrajyamma as well as the amount due on a promissory note, dated 7th January 1936, in favour of Y. Purushotham together with the amount on a promissory note for Rs. 200 lent by the plaintiff to the zamindar for raising the attachment on his car. The plaintiff as P.W.1 deposes that the previous zamindar came to his native place Kuchipudi and wanted him to arrange for a loan for depositing in Court for setting aside a sale of a village by name Vuppalappadu which had been sold under a decree of Court for a sum of money due as maintenance to an illegitimate son of the zamindar. This was on 31st December, 1935. Accordingly the plaintiff arranged for the loans from Sambayya and Sambrajyamma by executing the two promissory notes, Exhibits P-2(a) and P-2 on 31st December, 1935, for Rs. 1,670 and Rs. 800 respectively. It is seen from Exhibits D-1 (a) and D-1(b) the credit and debit chitta of the Chundi estate for the year 1936, that both these amounts were credited in the estate accounts as being borrowed for being remitted to the Sub-Court in connection with the auction sale of Vuppalappadu village on 1st January, 1936. We find that on 3rd January, 1936, a sum of Rs. 2,437-8-0 was paid over through one T. Lakshmayya, Pleader’s clerk, for remitting in the Imperial Bank in connection with the auction sale of Vuppalappadu in O.S. No. 9 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court. Thus, it is clear, that the moneys borrowed from Sambayya and Sambrajyamma were utilised for a necessary purpose of the estate. It is not seriously disputed that these monies were actually used for averting the loss of Vuppalappadu from the estate. But it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the debt for which Vuppalappadu village was sold was one not binding on the estate and therefore the money borrowed for setting aside the sale cannot be held to be binding on the estate. But it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the debt for which Vuppalappadu village was sold was one not binding on the estate and therefore the money borrowed for setting aside the sale cannot be held to be binding on the estate. Exhibit D-6(b), dated nth September, 1929, is a compromise decree between the previous zamindar and a minor by name Radhakrishnamurthi by his mother and next friend Laksh-mamma, whereby it was decreed in terms of a razinama that the minor plaintiff should be paid a sum of Rs. 4,500 by the zamindar. The suit arose out of a claim made by the minor on the ground that he is an illegitimate son of the zamindar for maintenance. See plaint Exhibit D-6. The zamindar’s written statement was Exhibit D-6(a). He contended that the minor’s mother was not a permanently kept concubine and that the minor was not his illegitimate son. This suit was settled and a compromise decree passed in accordance with the terms of the razinama filed in Court. The copy of the razinama has not been made available to the Court but from the recitals contained in Exhibit D-6(b) it is clear that there was a decree against the then zamindar for a sum of Rs. 4,500 though there are statements in the decree that the minor’s mother was not the permanently kept concubine of the zamindar and that the minor plaintiff was not the illegitimate son or dasi-puthra of the then zamindar. Despite these statements in the razinama, there was a decree on foot of a compromise for a sum of Rs. 4,500. It is admitted that in execution of this decree, this Vuppalappadu village was attached and sold in Court auction and the amount deposited on 3rd January, 1936, was to set aside the sale under Order 21, rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the decree Exhibit D-6(b) does not amount to a bona fide compromise of a disputed claim, for in view of the Privy Council decision in Kumar a Krishna Yachendra v. Rajeswara Rao1, viz., the Venkatagiri case, an illegitimate son of an impartible estate holder cannot claim maintenance out of the estate at all. Their Lordships held in the above case, following an earlier decision of the Judicial Committee in Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, etc. Their Lordships held in the above case, following an earlier decision of the Judicial Committee in Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, etc. v. Dewan Bahadur Dewan Krishna Kishore1, that an illegitimate son of an impartible estate holder is not a member of the joint family; nor is he entitled by custom to any allowance or maintenance under the Hindu Law. This being the law, Mr. Umamaheswaram contends that the compromise decree directing the payment of Rs. 4,500 to the minor Radhakrishnamurthi, even if he happened to be an illegitimate sort of the zamindar, is not a legitimate claim binding upon the estate. It is further contended that since Exhibits P-2 and P-2(a) do not make any mention of the fact that the monies borrowed thereunder were utilized for being deposited in Court, it cannot be safely inferred that they were so utilised. According to the learned counsel, in the promissory note Exhibit D-5 regarding which there is no claim now in appeal, the zamindar makes specific mention that the money was borrowed for being deposited in Court. But in view of Exhibits D-1 (a), D-1 (b) and D-1 (c) which are to the effect that these two amounts of Rs. 1,670 and Rs. 800 were credited in the zamindar’s account and practically contemporaneously an equivalent amount was given to a pleader’s clerk for depositing in Court to avert the sale, we are of opinion that the non-mention of the purpose in the promissory notes is a matter of no consequence at all. What is to be seen is whether these monies were borrowed for a necessary purpose of the estate or whether the estate had benefit of it. Though according to the Venkatagiri case2 and the decision which it followed, viz., Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, etc. v. Dewan Bahadur Dewan Krishna Kishore1, an illegitimate son of an impartible estate holder is not entitled to maintenance out of the estate, still, the prevailing view prior to these decisions in the case of an ordinary partible joint family governed by the Mitakshara was that the illegitimate son of a Sudra by a continuous concubine has the status of a son, and though he is not entitled to a partition, he is entitled as member of the family, to maintenance out of the joint family property in the hands of the collaterals with whom the father was joint. It was therefore a matter of belief in legal circles that the proposition laid down in Vellaiyappa Chetty v. Natarajan3, was applicable to an impartible estate as well at the time O.S. No. 9 of 1928 was filed by the minor against the previous holder of the estate. We have therefore to see whether under section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act the borrowing by the zamindar was for paying off the compromise decree debt due to the so-called illegitimate son was a justifiable necessity, the liability for which can be fastened on the estate. If according to the view which prevailed before the decision in the Venkatagiri case2, rightly or wrongly an impartible estate holder is bound to maintain his illegitimate sons out of the estate, then there can be no doubt that the borrowing from Sambayya and Sambrajyamma could be justified. There has been a good deal of discussion about the interpretation to be put upon section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act. Mr. V.K.T. Chari contends that with regard to the binding nature of a debt borrowed by an impartible estate holder, section 4 does not make any difference between such a holder and the manager of a Hindu family not being the father or grandfather. Section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act runs as follows:- “The proprietor of an impartible estate shall be incapable of alienating or binding by his debts such estate or any part thereof beyond his own lifetime unless the alienation shall be made, or the debt incurred, under circumstances which would entitle the managing member of a joint Hindu family, not being the father or grandfather of the other coparceners, to make an alienation of the joint property, or incur a debt, binding on the shares of the other coparceners independently of their consent.” If the debt in the present case had been incurred by the zamindar as the manager of a joint Hindu family not being the father or grandfather, would it be binding on the estate? According to the learned advocate for the appellant the case has to be viewed in this aspect. There was a danger to be averted to the estate because Vuppulapadu village was sold. According to the learned advocate for the appellant the case has to be viewed in this aspect. There was a danger to be averted to the estate because Vuppulapadu village was sold. Whether the debt for which that estate was sold was properly incurred or not is not a matter which a lender need enquire into at all."‘He relied for this proposition on the decision in Niladri Sahu v. Mahant Chaturbhuj Das1 and also on the definition of what is meant by "benefit" and"neces-sity" in Sellappa Chettiar v. Subban Chettiar2. In the case of an ordinary manager of a joint Hindu family, if a creditor is told that properties belonging to the family have been sold in Court auction and the creditor is bona fide satisfied that such was the case, a lending by him to get the sale set aside would be binding on the estate. But it is contended on the other side that unless there is compelling necessity or apparent benefit to the estate, the borrowing would not be binding on the property because of the principle enunciated in Hunumanprasad Pandey v. Mussammat Babooee Munraj Koonwaree3, that only a lender who bona fide makes enquiries and satsifies himself of the necessities of the loan is protected even if the manager does not apply the money borrowed for purposes of the estate. Mr. Umamaheswaram contends that the words in section 4, viz., "would entitle the managing member of a joint Hindu family" to incur a debt, do not include the category of cases where a lender who makes bona fide enquiries and lends the money is protected. It is a case of a protection to the lender by making The estate liable and not one where the managing member is given a right of incurring a debt. For this purpose he relies upon a recent decision of our learned brother Raghava Rao, J., in Nana Rama Naidu v. K.K.B. Krishnappa Naick4. The learned Judge says that what the section requires according to its plain language is the existence of circumstances entitling the manager of a joint Hindu family to incur the debt in question. It takes no notice of circumstances entitling the lender to relief notwithstanding the absence of circumstances entitling the manager to incur the debt. We are not inclined to agree with this distinction. It takes no notice of circumstances entitling the lender to relief notwithstanding the absence of circumstances entitling the manager to incur the debt. We are not inclined to agree with this distinction. If the lender makes bona fide enquiries and satisfies himself of the necessities of the loan, the alienation made by the manager or the debt incurred by him could be binding on the estate. That would be a case where the manager is entitled to make an alienation. The distinction is not whether the necessity or benefit does exist, but the relief given to the lender arises from the fact that having satisfied himself of the existence of necessity or benefit, he lends the money but the borrower does not utilise it for that purpose. It is only the failure of the manager to ‘utilise the money borrowed towards the necessity that is condoned in order to give relief to the lender. We are therefore of opinion that a reading of section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act clothes the holder of an impartible estate with all the powers of the manager of a joint Hindu family not being the father or the grandfather to mulct the family property by making alienations binding on the estate or incurring a debt binding on the estate just as he is a manager of a joint Hindu family. The only difference which section 4 postulates is that when a suit is brought, on a debt incurred by an impartible estate holder, unlike the manager of a joint Hindu family, he cannot represent his successors-in-interest in that suit. If the lender has to realise the money from the estate subsequent to the death of that impartible estate holder, he has to take separate proceedings and show that the borrowing was for a necessary purpose. It is further contended by Mr. V.K.T. Chari that the question of bona fide enquiry does not arise in this case because there was an application of the money to a necessary purpose. He relied upon the well-known cases such as Shibaprasad Singh v. Prayagkumari Debi5, regarding the character of an impartible estate in comparison with that of a joint Hindu family. He also relied upon Sellappa Chettiar v. Support Chettiar2. He relied upon the well-known cases such as Shibaprasad Singh v. Prayagkumari Debi5, regarding the character of an impartible estate in comparison with that of a joint Hindu family. He also relied upon Sellappa Chettiar v. Support Chettiar2. In the latter case Venkatasubba Rao, J., was of opinion that the rule of benefit to the estate should not be confined only to cases where both need and benefit co-exist and the transaction need not be of a defensive nature and therefore a narrow interpretation should not be put upon the expression "for the benefit of the estate". It is unnecessary for us in this case to discuss his matter at length because we are of opinion that the payment of the amount due under the compromise decree for the maintenance due to the minor was a debt then binding on the estate and the lender need not have gone further and seen whether the liability in its inception was one which would be binding on the estate. The decision in Raja Ramachandra Sum Harischandra Deo Garu v. Akella Venkatalakshminarayana1 on which Mr. Umamaheswaram laid great stress and where the policy of the Impartible Estates Act is considered in great detail, cannot be said to be strictly applicable to the present case. On the other hand, Mr. Thiruvenkatachari argues that what was public policy when the Impartible Estates Act was enacted would not be public policy to-day and he relies upon Bourne v. Kaane2 and Ponder v. St. John Mildmay3. We do not intend to go into the matter in view of our finding that there was a debt which was ostensibly binding on the estate and about which the creditors’ agent, the present appellant, was bona fide satisfied that the. same was binding on the estate. In this connection we may also refer to a decision of the Lahore High Court reported in Chala Ram v. Kishen Chand4, where it is held that where the money is actually utilized for a necessary purpose, the question of further enquiry was unnecessary. It seems to us therefore that the amounts due under the promissory notes to Sambayya and Sambrajyamma are bindingl on the estate and the appellant is entitled to recover them. The next amount claimed by the appellant and which is made the subject of appeal is the sum of Rs. It seems to us therefore that the amounts due under the promissory notes to Sambayya and Sambrajyamma are bindingl on the estate and the appellant is entitled to recover them. The next amount claimed by the appellant and which is made the subject of appeal is the sum of Rs. 1,155 due on a promissory note, dated 7th January, 1936, by the zamindar for a principal sum of Rs. 1,100 in favour of one Purushotham. The object with which this money was borrowed was for paying of the peishkush due from the estate. Section 6 of the Impartible Estates Act prohibits the incurring of any debt by making the estate liable for paying of land revenue due to the Govern-ment, unless the zamindar had first obtained the consent in writing of the Collector of the District in which the estate is situated, though the clause hardier says that such consent shall not be refused unless, in the opinion of the Collector, the case is one in which the land revenue due to the Government may be realised by management of the estate under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. It cannot be said that in this case such consent was either asked for or refused. Relying upon the decision in Venkatalingama v. Rao Muni Venkatadri Rao5 and a recent judgment of Leach, C.J. and Lakshmana Rao, J. in Raja Kamineni Bangaru Kumara Krishnappa Nayanim Vara v. Boyidi Ramanadandu and another6, it is contended for the respondent that this debt is opposed to public policy and; cannot be made a charge on the estate. In Venkatalingama v. Rao Muni Venkatadri Rao5, the question whether the sale was opposed to section 6 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act was allowed to be raised even in appeal and the learned Judges held that in the interests of public policy, the sale should be set aside. As the previons zamindar in this case did not even take the permission of the Collector to borrow for paying off the peshkush and as Purushotham, the lender, knew fully well that the money was to be utilised for a purpose for which the estate could not be alienated without the permission of the Collector, we are of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that this sum cannot be made binding on the estate. We therefore disallow the appellant’s claim regarding the amount of Rs. 1,155. claimed in the plaint. The next item is the sum of Rs. 207-0-9 on a promissory note for Rs. 200 advanced by the appellant to the zamindar for raising the attachment on his car. In view of the evidence in this case, that, at the time the money was advanced, the car belonging to the zamindar had been attached and this amount was utilised for raising the attachment, we are of opinion that this debt comes within the ambit of section 4 of the Impartible Estates Act. Our conclusion, therefore, is that out of the amounts claimed by the plaintiff in this suit, the amounts due under the promissory notes to Sambayya and Sambraj-yamma as well as the amount due to the plaintiff under the promissory note, dated 9th March, 1936 are alone liable to be paid by the present zamindar and that the rest of the claims are not binding on the estate. In the result, the decree of the lower Court dismissing the suit is set aside and the plaintiff is given a decree against the estate in the hands of the present zamindar represented by the Court of Wards to the extent of the amounts due under the promissory notes executed to Sambayya and Samrajyamma as well as the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff dated 9th March, 1936. These documents are decreed in addition to what has been allowed by the Collector. The decree of the lower Court will be modified accordingly. Each party will bear his own costs throughout. K.S. ----- Appeal allowed.