LexSIDHESHW AR MUKHERJEE versus BHUBNESHWAR PRASAD NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• s.c.:it. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 177 document is silent on the question as to what hap- 1953 Pened to the assets and liabilities of the firm that was 0 -. -. ,, • orn1nissioner OJ constituted under the deed of 1939. To all mtents Income-tax and purposes the firm as reconstituted was not a West Bengal different unit but it remained the same unit in spite of v. the change in its constitution. A. w. Figgie• 1 b d £ and Co., The resu t is that we see no su stantial groun s or and Others. disturbing the opinion given by the High Court on the question submitted to it. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the respondents: P. K. Chatterjee. SIDHESHW AR MUKHERJEE v. BHUBNESHW AR PRASAD NAHAIN SINGH AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.J Hindii law-Debts-Pioiis obligation of sons-Decree against jimior meinber for debts which are not immoral or illegal-Sale of his interest in exewtion-Rights of pnrchaser-Interest of sons of jwiior member, whether passes to p11rchaser-R11le iii Nanomi Babuasin's case-P11rchaser's right to possession or share of profits. A person who has obtained a decree against a member of a joint Hindu family for a debt due to him is entitled to attach and sell the interest of his debtor in the joint family property, and, if the debt was not immoral or illegal, the interest of the judgment- debtor's sons also in the joint family property would pass to the purchaser by such sale even though the judgment-debtor was not the karta of the family and the family did not consist of the father and the sons only when the decree was obtained against the father and the properties were sold. It is not necessary that the sons should be made part.ies to the suit or the execution proceedings. Lalta Prashad y. G'azadhar (I.L.R. 55 All. 28), Ohhotevlal v. Ganpat (I.L.R. 57 All. 176) and Virayya v. Parthasarathi (I.L.R. 57 Mad. 190) approved . 1953 Oct. 5. 1963 Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Others. i78 stJ:P:R:E~iE COURT REPORfS [1954] The rule laid down by the Privy Council in Nmwini Babl!a- sin,'s case is not restricted. in its application to cases \vhere the father was the head of the family and in that capacity could represent his sons in the suit or execution proceedings, for; subject to the right of the sons to assert and prove that the debt contracted by their father was not such as would be binding on them under the Hindu la,v, the father, even if he \Vas not the karta could re- present his sons as effectively in the sale or execution proceedings as he could do if he was the kctrta himself. A person who has purchasecl the interest of a member of a joint Hindu family in execution of a decree against him is not entitled to institute a suit against the other coparceners for recovery of a share of the income of the joint family properties from the date of his purchase. He can work out his rights only by a suit for parti- tion and his right to possession would commence only from the period \Yhen a specific allotn1ent is made in his favour. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 53 to 55 of 1951. Appeals from the Judgment and Decree dated the 8th September, 1948, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Mahohar Lall and Mahabir Prasad JJ.) in C.A. Nos. 219 of 1946, and 40 and 39 of 1945, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 29th •· January, 1946, and 16th September, 1944, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Motihari, in Original Suits Nos. 108, 109 and 110 of 1943. C. ](. Daphtary, Solicitor.General for India (Ramesh- war Nath, with him) for the appellant. Ratan Lal Chawla (1(. N. Aggarwal, with him) for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. H.J. Umrigar for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. '; 1953. October 5. 'l'hc Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHEIWEA J. Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1951. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, dated the 8th of September, 1948, modifying those of the Additional Subordinate • • S.C.R. SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS 179 .Judge, Motihari, passed in Partition Suit No. 108/6 of 1.953 1943/46. There were two money suits between the Sidheshwar same parties which were tried along with the suit for Mukherjee partition and both of them were decre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.