P.N. VEETI NARAYANI versus PATHUMMA BEEVL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 13-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.N. VEETI NARAYAN! 
A 
v. 
PATHUMMA BEEVl AND ANOTHER 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 
[A.M. AHMADI AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
B 
· Limitation Act: Sections 18, 19 and 20---Acknowledgment of 
debt-When saves limitation. 
Muslim Personal Law-Liability to discharge debts devolves on 
heirs proportionate to their respective Shares in the estate of the 
deceased. 
One Vellappa Rawther, deceased, had incurred debt by means of 
two.promissory notes for Rs.25,000 and Rs.50,000; In the suits tiled on the 
basis of the _promissory notes, the Trial Court granted a decree against 
tite estate of Vellappa Rawther in the hands of defendants 2 to 10. 
The High Court on appeal modified the decree reducing it to one 
fourth of the decreed sum and focussed the liabili~y on defendant-
Respondent No. 2 absoiving others of the remaining liability on the bar 
of limitation. Such view was taken as the facts established that the 
liability to discharge debts of Vellappa. Rawther . after his death was 
individually on his heirs proportionate to the extent of their share in the 
estate devolving on them, and since the debt had become time barred, 
acknowledgment of the same hy defendant-respondent No. 2 as well as 
partial payment of the debt by him rendered him alone liable to meet 
liability to the extent of one fourth related to the share of the estate 
Which as a Muslim heir he received from tile deceased. 
Before this Court, it was ciaimed on behalf of the appellant that 
·under sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act the acknowledgment and 
partial payment saved limitation against all and thus the entire debt 
could be recovered from defendant-respondent No. 2, he being in pos-
session of the estate lying joint. 
Dismissing the· appeal, this Court, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: (1) The debt of the deceased gets divided in shares by 
operation of Muslim Personal Law amongst the heirs proportionate to 
their shares in the estate. The theory of sanctity of the integrity of the 
H 
433 
A 
B 
c 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
debt is apparently foreign in the case of a deceased muslim leaving debt 
and some estate both being divisible amongst his heirs. [247G] 
Mohd. Abdul Qadeer v. Azamatullah Khan and 8 Others, [1974] 
1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 98; Vasantam Sambasiva Rao v. Sri 
Krishna Cement and Concrete Works, Tenali 1977 Andhra Law Times 
Reports at 528; N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N.C. Mohammad Ismail 
and Others, [1966] 1 SCR 935 at 940, referred to. 
(2) It would be right to treat it settled that muslim heirs are inde-
pendent owners of their specific shares simultaneously in the estate and 
debts of the deceased, their liability fixed under the personal law 
proportionate to the extent of their shares. [248H] 
Jafri Begum v. Amir Muhammad Khan, [1885] Vol. 7 ILR 
Allahabad series, referred to. 
(3) The heirs of a muslim are by themselves independent debtors; 
D 
the debt having been split by operation of law. Inter se, they have no 
jural relationship as co-debtors or joint debtors so as to fall within the 
shadow of contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees or in a class 
akin ' ' them. They succeed to the estate as tenants-in-common in 
specific shares. [250D l 
E 
(4) Even a signed written acknowledgment by the principal or 
through his agent would bind the principal and not anyone else standing 
in jural relationship with the principal in accordance with section 20(2) 
of the Limitation Act. The Muslim heirs inter-se have no such relation-
ship. [250E] 
F 
(5) If the debt is one and indivisible, payment by one will inter-
rupt limitation against all the debtors unless they come within the 
exception laid down in section 20(2). And if the debt is susceptible of 
division and though seemingly one consists really of several distinct 
debts each one of which is payable by one of the obligors separately and 
not by the rest, section 20 keeps alive his part of the debt which has got 
G 
to be discharged by the person who has made payment of interest. It 
cannot affect separate shares of the other debtors unless on the princi-
pal of agency, express or implied, the payment can be said to be a 
payment on their behalf also. [250H; 2SiAJ 
Abheswari Dasya and Another v. Baburali Shaikh and Others, 
H 
AIR 1937 Cal. 191, referred to. 
P.N.V. NARAYAN! v. PATHUMMA BEEVI [PUNCHHI, JI 
435 
(6) The property of the co-heirs supposedly in possession of 
defendant-respondent No. 2. cannot be touched directly in his hand 
unless the co-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.