LUHAR AMRIT LAL NAGJI vs DOSHI JAYANTILAL JETRALAL AND OTHERS.

The Supreme Court held that under Hindu Law, when challenging an alienation made by a father to pay an antecedent debt, the sons must prove both the immoral character of the debt and that the mortgagee had notice of this immorality. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, which required the plaintiffs to discharge this onus, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The principles established in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh and Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad were applied, reinforcing the necessity of proving both elements for a successful challenge.