Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Km. Kr. Km. Kuppan Chettiar And Ors. vs Masa Goundan And Ors. on 14 December, 1936 cites

Subramania Ayyar vs Swamunatha Ayyar on 15 November, 1933

Having regard to this well-understood distinction between the creditor's remedy in execution and the creditor's remedy by a separate suit, we are with due respect unable to follow the observations which were cited to us from certain decisions of the other High Courts which either ignore this distinction or proceed on a basis different from the Full Bench decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Sabapathy Ayyar (1927) 54 M.L.J. 726 : I.L.R. 51 Mad. 361 (F.B.), and hold that after a bona fide partition the father's creditor will not even have a right of suit against the sons.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sat Narain vs Shri Kishen Das on 13 July, 1936

5. It is well settled and the proposition has now been placed beyond doubt by the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Sat Narain v. Rai Bahadur Sri Kishen Das (1936) 71 M.L.J. 812 : L.R. 63 I.A. 384 : I.L.R. 17 Lah. 644 (P.C.) that the father's power of sale for his debts exists only so long as the joint family remains undivided. Their reference with approval to the decision of this Court in Baluswami Aiyar, In re (1928) 55 M.L.J. 726 : L.R. 51 Mad. 417 (F.B.), shows that even a division in status will suffice to put an end to this power. It would therefore follow that after a division in status the father's creditor cannot, any more than the Official Assignee, claim that the property is saleable by the father and therefore attachable by himself.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

S. Tirumalamuthu Adaviar vs Subramania Adaviar, Minor By Court ... on 4 November, 1936

3. The question for determination is whether, in spite of the partition evidenced by Ex. V, the shares taken by defendants 2 to 5 are liable to be proceeded against in execution of the money decree obtained against the father alone. I have dealt with this question at some length in a judgment recently delivered by me in Thirumalamuthu Adaviar v. Subramania Adaviar (1937) 1 M.L.J. 243 and I do not propose to repeat what has been said there. I shall only add that the case for the decree-holder was much stronger in that case than in the present instance because in that case I proceeded on the footing that the partition was entered into with a view to defeat the creditor.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1