Allahabad High Court
Raja Bahadur Raja Brij Narain Rai vs Mangla Prasad Rai And Ors. on 16 April, 1920
Equivalent citations: 56IND. CAS.526, AIR 1920 ALLAHABAD 161
JUDGMENT
1. The value of the subject, matter of the proposed appeal exceeds Rs. 10,000, but this Court affirmed the decision of the Court below. We have, therefore, to see whether the case involves a substantial question of law. The question of law, which arises if, what constitutes antecedent debt so as to justify a transfer of joint family property by the manager of the family in the case of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. This Court has applied in this case the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Sahu Ram Chandra v, Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 437 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : 1 P.L.W. 557 : 15 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. L.R. 498 : 26 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 : 44 I.A. 126 (P.C.) as contained in pages 447 and 448. The Madras High Court in the Full Bench case of Arumugham Chetty v. Muthu Koundan 52 Ind. Cas. 526 : 42 M. 711 : 9 L.W. 565 : (1919) M.W.N. 409 : 37 M.L.J. 166 : 26 M.L.T. 96 have taken a different view, and so have the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh in the case of Ramman Lal v. Ram Gopal 47 Ind. Cas. 987 : 21 O.C. 200 : 5 O.L.J. 629. The Patna High Court has held the same view as that adopted by this Court in the present case and the judgment of the learned Judges of the Patna High Court was passed in the case of Sukhdeo Jha v. Jhapat Kamat 51 Ind. Cas. 946 : 5 P.L.J. 120 : 1 P.L.T. 49 : (1920) Pat. 67 : 2 U.P.L.R. (Pat.) 39. There is thus a conflict of opinion as to what was intended by their Lordships of the Privy Council to be laid down in the case of Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh 39 Ind. Cas. 280 : 39 A. 437 : 21 C.W.N. 698 : 1 P.L.W. 557 : 15 A.L.J. 437 : 19 Bom. L.R. 498 : 26 C.L.J. 1 : 33 M.L.J. 14 : (1917) M.W.N. 439 : 22 M.L.T. 22 : 6 L.W. 213 : 44 I.A. 126 (P.C.) and what is the effect of the observation made by their Lordships in that case. It is desirable that the question, which is one of general importance, be authoritatively settled. We, therefore, certify that this case fulfils the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.