Hutcha Thimmegowda And Anr. Vs Dyavamma And Ors.
| Citation | AIR 1954 Kant 93, AIR 1954 Mys 93, ILR 1954 KAR 70, (1954) 32 MysLJ |
| Date of Judgment | 15 January, 1954 |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Case Type | Hindu Joint Family Properties Debt |
| Appellant | Hutcha Thimmegowda |
| Respondent | Dyavamma And Others |
| Bench | Medapa, V Ramaiya, Vasudevamurthy |
INTRODUCTION
In this case, similar to others involving the validity of property transfers by a Hindu father to settle his debts, the decision of the Supreme Court referred to as (A) is considered to establish principles that differ from those summarized earlier. As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which states that the Supreme Court’s rulings are binding on all courts in the country, it is important to examine whether the relevant law in this matter is laid out in the mentioned case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiffs, consisting of the mother, two minor daughters, and two minor sons, filed a lawsuit against defendant 6 seeking a declaration that certain sales made by defendant 6 in favor of other defendants are not valid concerning their shares in the joint family properties listed in the complaint’s schedule. They also requested the division and delivery of their respective shares and claimed mesne profits. The plaintiffs argued that defendant 6 had been reckless with money, accumulated debts, and made property transfers that neither served a legal necessity nor benefitted the family. Defendant 5 is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 5, and defendants 1 and 4 have close ties to the family. These defendants did not participate in the case, and although the lower court invalidated the transfers in their favor, they did not appeal, so their cases are not under consideration.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the mortgage is treated as a transaction of debt?
- The next question that arises for consideration is what is the relief which should be granted to the plaintiffs?
ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT
Defendants 2 and 3 disputed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, asserting that they had purchased item 4 and item 2, respectively, from defendant 6. They claimed that these transactions were valid and enforceable against the plaintiffs because they were carried out to settle previous debts incurred by defendant 6 for the benefit and necessity of the family, as well as other similar advantageous purposes. Additionally, they argued that neither plaintiff 1 (the mother) nor plaintiffs 2 and 3 (the daughters) had the right to claim shares, and plaintiffs 4 and 5, who were not yet born at the time of the transactions, were unable to challenge them. The Subordinate Judge, who presided over the case, determined that the sales in favor of defendants 2 and 3 did not bind the plaintiffs. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and granted them a decree. Now, defendants 2 and 3 have filed appeals against the decision.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellants argued that the purchaser was not obligated to ensure that the purchase money was used as intended. However, considering that the sale was explicitly intended to pay off a previous debt, and that debt has clearly not been paid off, it is difficult to accept this argument, which appears quite extreme given the facts and circumstances of this case. If we were to accept this argument, it would put the minors and their other properties at risk of still being liable for the debt, while the property in question would have already been transferred out of the family’s possession. Therefore, we agree with the Subordinate Judge’s decision regarding the sale to defendant 2 under Ex. 3, and we dismiss the appeal in relation to him.
JUDGMENT
The court ruled that the amount owed under the decree was a pre-partition debt for which the sons were liable to pay, provided it was not illegal or immoral, and no arrangements were made during the partition to settle the debt. Within the judgment, it was stated: “It can now be considered well-established that the son’s pious obligation to pay his father’s debts exists whether the father is alive or deceased. Therefore, the father has the right during his lifetime to transfer any joint family property, including the interests of his sons, to settle a pre-existing debt that was not incurred for the benefit or necessity of the family, as long as it is not morally objectionable.”
According to the strict Hindu doctrine, the sons’ responsibility to repay the father’s debts generally arises when the father is deceased, incapacitated, or has been absent for an extended period. In such circumstances, there is no need for the father to alienate family property, as it is precisely under these circumstances that the son is obligated to fulfill the father’s debts.
The Subordinate Judge ruled that plaintiffs 2 and 3, who are daughters of defendant 6, cannot challenge the property transfers, while plaintiffs 4 and 5, born on 2-11-43 and 28-11-45, can question the sales made to defendants 2 and 3. These findings are not in dispute. Our concern is solely whether these two sales are binding on the plaintiffs.
The sale in favor of defendant 2, documented in Ex. III, is a sale deed dated 6-12-1944, amounting to Rs. 275/- and pertains to item 4. The sale-deed states that the purpose of the sale was to settle a previous debt of Rs. 3007- owed to Koppal Boregowda, as stated in the original document Ex. XI. However, the original of Ex. XI, with an endorsement of discharge, has not been presented, and Koppal Boregowda has not provided testimony. Moreover, defendant 2, examined as D.W. 7, acknowledged that the debt has not been paid off and that defendant 6 himself received the purchase money, claiming that he would settle the earlier debt. Under these circumstances, the lower court correctly concluded that this sale was not established as being for any benefit or necessity.
CONCLUSION
The special liability imposed solely on religious grounds is limited to the sons of the father and does not extend to other members of the joint family. This liability is entirely based on the relationship between the father and his sons.
Regarding the legal liability of the sons, as long as the debts incurred by the father are not proven to be illegal or against religious principles, according to the Hindu law, the sons are legally obligated to repay those debts. The creditor can enforce this liability by seizing and selling the sons’ share of the joint family property, treating it as if it were a personal debt owed by the sons themselves.
The fact that the father was not the karta (manager) of the joint family, or that there were other coparceners besides the father and sons, does not affect the sons’ liability in any way. Even without being the karta, the father, as a representative of his branch of the coparcenary comprising himself and his sons, could fully act on their behalf.
This article is written by Mudragada Iswarya Lakshmi, a student of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad, 6th semester, an Intern under Legal Vidhya.
