LexMANIBHAI versus HEMRAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E r G H MANIBHAI v. HEMRAJ MARCH 21, 1990 [K.N. SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] Hindu Law-Joint Family Property-Alienation by father to satisfy debts contracted for his personal benefit and without any legal necessity~Alienation is binding on sons if it is not tainted with immor- ality and illegality and the debts were antecedent to the alienaton. Hindu Law-Joint Family Property-Alienation by father- Validity of-Transactions of alienation-Eack transaction should be examined independently. Hindu Law-Doctrine of Pious obligation-Liability of sons to discharge father's debt-Doctrine postulates father's debt must be Vyavaharik. "Antecedent debt"-What is. 'B', who received some agricultural lands and a house in the partition of his ancestral properties, and his minor sons 'H' and 'R' (Respondent) mortgaged their properties for a sum of Rs.5,500 by executing a conditional sale deed on 22nd April, 1948 in favour of 'N'. But by a reconveyance deed dated 11th February, 1953 they got their properties reconveyed in their favour by 'N'. On the same day i.e. 11th February, 1953 they sold some agricultural lands and the house for Rs.5,500 to 'M', (Appellant) who was brother of 'N'. Subsequently 'M' sold the house to 'W' and others. The remaining land was sold by them on the same date to 'V' and his brother. 'B's sons and wife (Plaintiffs) filed a suit against 'M' (Defendant No. 1), 'V' and his brother (Defendant No. 2 and 3), 'W' and others (Defendant No. 4 to 8) and 'B' (Defendant No. 9) for a decree of posses- sion of the a21"itultural lands and house which came in their share as members of the Joint Hindu F amity contending that alienation made by 'B' was not bindiug on them because it was neither for any legal neces- sity nor for the benefit of the minors or their Estate, but was for satisfy- ing the personal needs of 'B' who had the vices of drinking and gambl- ing and was spending everything he used to earn in his business of grain delali. 40 MANIBHAI v. HEMRAJ 41 The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that (i) 'B' was not A ~ indulging in any vices, (ii) the alienation made by 'B' was for the satisfaction of the antecedent debt due on mortgage'; and (iii) 'B' was a broker who needed cash capital for bis business and (iv) the plaintiffs and 'B' were estopped from challenging the title of 'W' and others, since 'W' and others (Defendant No. 4 to 8) had spent Rs.25,000 on the reconstruction of the house purchased from 'M' within the knowledge B of plaintiffs and without their objection. I Plaintiffs preferred an ap.peal before the High Court contending ). that 'M' and 'N' ran a family firm of which they were owners and the execution of the conditional sale deed, reconveyance deed and the sub- sequent sale deed of the same day were nothing but a device and were c really a part of one and the same transaction and that if tbe original transaction of 22nd April, 1948 of the conditional sale with 'N' was nut valid and binding on the minor sons of 'B' then the subsequent transac- . -'. lion of 11th February, 1953, for payment of debt or liability due under that alientation cannot be •11pported. [ Allowing the appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, had passed a decree for possession of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs by holding (i) that the transactions dated 22nd April, 1948 as well as all other transactions of 11th February, 1953 were part of the same transaction; (ii) that since transaction dated 22nd "' April, 1948 was invalid because it was not supported by any legal neces- E sity, then the subsequent transactions of sale and reconveyance of 11th February, 1953 were also invalid. Hence this appeal by special leave by the defendants. ~· ' Allowing the appeal in part, this Court, F HELD: 1. The doctrine of pious obligation under which sous are ~~- held liable to discharge their father's debts is based only on religious considerations. This doctrine inevitably postulates that the father's debts must be vyavaharik. If the debts are not vyavaharik or are avyavaharik the doctrine of pious obligation cannot be invoked. [59E] ' G Luhar Amrit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jetha/al & Ors., A.I.R. 1960 SC 964, relied on. _, 2. Where the sons are joint with their father, and debts have been contracted by the father even for his own personal benefit, the sons are liable to pay the debts provided they
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.