PANNALAL AND ANOTHER versus MST. NARAINI AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 07-03-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
M"1ch 7. 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
PANNALAL AND ANOTHER 
.. 
f), 
MST. NARAIN! AND OTHERS. 
(SAIYID FAZL Au, MuKHERJEA and VrvIAN BosE, JJ.] 
Hindu law-Debts-Pre-partition debts of father-Sons' !iabi/J'ty 
'• 
-Pious liability of son-Nature and extent, and tnode of enforce-
ment-Decree against estate of father in sons' hands as legal repre-
sentatives-Whether executable against property allotted to sons o-n 
partition-Civil Proccdur< Code (Act V of 1908), ss. 47, 52, 53. 
B, acting as 
n1anager 
of a joint Hindu fan1ily, consisting of 
himself and his sons 
executed a 
mortgage deed in favour of the 
plaintiff, hypothecating certain movables to secure a loon. Sub-
sequently the sons 
obtained a partition 
decree 
against 
their 
father and the joint family properties were divi9ed by metes and 
bounds and separate possession was taken by the father and the 
sons. Later on, the plaintiff filed a suit against B praying for a 
decree against the mortgaged 
property as well 
as against the 
joint family. 
The sons applied for being impleaded as defend-
ants stating that the mortgaged properties were allotted to them 
by the partition decree and B was not the manager 
of a 
joint 
Hindu family. 
In reply the plaintiff gave up the claim for a 
mortgage decree 
stating that 
she would 
be 
satisfied with 
a 
money decree against B and the plaint was amended accordingly. 
B died and his sons were brought on the record as his legal 
representatives. The sons pleaded, inte1· alia, that the debt was 
illegal and itnmoral as it related to speculative transactions by 
the father. 
The parties arrived at a. comprotnise and on the basis 
thereof a simple money decree was passed in favour of the plaint-
iff against the estate of B in the hands of his legal representatives. 
The judgment-debtors (sons) 
disputed their liability 
011 
three 
grounds, viz., (i) that under the terms of the cotnpromise decree, 
the decree-holder could 
proceed only 
against the 
properties of 
B in the 
hands of his legal 
representatives 
and no property 
belonging 
to the sons 
could be 
made 
liable for the decree; 
(ii) that, as the decree waS obtained after partition of the joint 
family properties between the father and his sons, the properties 
of the sons obtained in partition 
were not liable under Hindu 
law for the debt of the father, (iii) 
that in 
any event if there 
was any pious 
obligation on the part of the 
sons to pay the 
father's debt incurred before partition such obligation could be 
enforced against the sons only in ·a properly constituted suit and 
not by way of execution of a 
decree obtained in a suit which 
was brought against the father alone during his lifetime and to 
which the sons were made parties as legal representatives after 
the father's death: 
-
-
• • 
I ,. 
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
545 
Held, (repelling the contentions), ( l) that as the decree fulfilled 
the conditions of sec. 52(1) of the 
Civil 
Procedure Code it 
attracted all the incidents which attach by law to a decree of 
that character and therefore the 
decree-holder was entitled to 
call in aid the provisions of sec. 53 of the Code and if any pro-
perty in the hands of the sons was liable under the Hindu law 
to pay the father's debt, such property would be liable in execu-
tion of the decree by virtue of the provision of sec. 53 of the 
Civil Procedure Code; (2) that a son is liable even after partition 
for the pre-partition debts of his father, which 
are 
not immoral 
or illegal and for the payment of which no arrangement was 
made at the time of the partition; (3) that a decree passed 
against the separated sons as legal representatives of the deceased 
father in respect 
of a debt incurred 
before partition 
can be 
executed against the shares obtained by such sons at the parti-
tion and this can be done in execution proceedings and it is not 
necessary to bring a separate suit for the purpose. 
[Case was remanded to the execution court to determine the 
question whether the debt was immoral or illegal and whether 
any arrangement was made at the time of partition for the pay-
ment of the debt.] 
Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad (I.L.R. 53 All. 868 F.B.) approved. 
The view of the majority in 
Atul Krishna v. 
Lala Nandanji 
(I.L.R. 14 Pat. 732) disapproved. (Case law discussed). 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 57 of 1951. Appeal from a judgment dated 18th 
May, 1948, of the High Court of East Punjab at S

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