Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2] [Entire Act]

State of Haryana - Section

Section 9 in The Punjab Debtors' Protection Act, 1936

9. Exemption of ancestral property from liability.

- When custom is the rule of decision in regard to succession to immovable property then, notwithstanding any custom to the contrary, ancestral immovable property in the hands of a subsequent holder [whether male or female and if female whether she holds as a limited owner or full owner] [Inserted by Punjab Act 9 of 1948, section 2.] shall not be liable in the execution of a decree or order of a court relating to a debt incurred by any of his predecessors in interests:Provided that, when the debt has been expressly charged by way of mortgage on ancestral immovable property by predecessor in interest, the court shall determine the liability of such land as if this section had not been passed:Provided further, and subject to the foregoing proviso, that in respect of a debt incurred before the commencement of this Act, ancestral property in the hands of a subsequent holder may be liable, only if all the following conditions are satisfied:First. - That, before such liability is determined, the judgment debtor shall be given sufficient opportunity to show cause against such liability.Second. - That such liability was permitted by the rule of custom applicable to the judgment debtor immediately before the commencement of this Act, and nothing in this section shall prevent the judgment debtor from proving the contrary.Third. - That the decree holder is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court, that, at the time the debt was originally incurred, there was a subsisting judgment or order of a competent court, not in ex parte proceedings, holding that such a custom was applicable to the sub-tribe in the tehsil to which the judgment-debtor belongs.Fourth. - That the judgment-debtor is not able to show to the satisfaction of the court, that, at the time the debt was originally incurred there was a subsisting judgment or order of a competent court not in ex parte proceedings, holding to the contrary and subsequent to the judgment relied upon by the decree holder.