Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)
Karuppanan vs Raju (Deceased) on 12 November, 2025 cites

Pannalal And Another vs Mst. Naraini And Others on 7 March, 1952

Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, (1953) 2 SCC 265 another three Judge bench of the Supreme Court, while approving the view taken in Pannalal's case cited above, held that in a suit filed by the creditor against a father, the sons are not even necessary parties. It observed that if the creditor's right are deemed to be based exclusively upon the father's power of disposition over the son's interest, such right must necessarily come to an end once the father passes away, or it results in a partition between him and his son. It cannot be said as an absolute rule that a creditor's right to recover a debt from the son's share in the joint family 18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:30 am ) S.A.Nos.713 & 714 of 2000 property is co-extensive with the father's power of disposal over such interest. The only exception when the son was not held liable for the debt is when the debt is tainted with immorality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 75 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Brij Narain vs Mangla Prasad on 24 November, 1923

"13. It can now be taken to be fairly well settled that the pious liability of the son to pay the debts of his 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:30 am ) S.A.Nos.713 & 714 of 2000 father exists whether the father is alive or dead. [Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad, (1923-24) 51 IA 129 : 1923 SCC OnLine PC 49] Thus, it is open to the father, during his lifetime, to effect a transfer of any joint family property including the interests of his sons in the same to pay off an antecedent debt not incurred for family necessity or benefit, provided it is not tainted with immorality. It is equally open to the creditor to obtain a decree against the father and in execution of the same put up to sale not merely the father's but also the son's interest in the joint estate. The creditor can make the sons parties to such suit and obtain an adjudication from the court that the debt was a proper debt payable by the sons. But even if the sons are not made parties, they cannot resist the sale unless they succeed in establishing that the debts were contracted for immoral purposes."
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Mrs. Umadevi Nambiar vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese ... on 1 April, 2022

40. When a property has been sold for the debts of the father, the Hindu law, prior to the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, placed an obligation on the sons to answer the debts. This position has already been settled by a catena of judgements set forth above. If the minors have to reach out to the property and claim partition, then they should have sought for a declaration that the court auction sale was invalid. They, not having sought for the said relief, are not entitled to seek for partition. This is because as long as the court auction sale stands, the plaintiffs do not get the right over the same, as the property ceases to form part of the joint family estate, and the right to claim partition does not survive. The least that Mr.N.Manoharan's client ought to have sought was a declaration that the court auction sale is invalid, or non est, or illegal, or at the very least, that the court auction sale is not binding on them. Without seeking for any of the aforesaid reliefs, a suit for mere partition cannot be maintainable with respect to the property covered by court auction sale. When this aspect was pointed out, Mr.N.Manoharan referred to a judgement of Supreme Court in Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, (2022) 7 SCC 90. 22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:30 am ) S.A.Nos.713 & 714 of 2000 He referred to paragraph No.15 of the said judgement in order to substantiate his case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document
1   2 Next