TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, reversing High Court decree. Appellants retain possession, subject to respondents' rights.</h1> <h3>Suraj Bunsi Koer (Mother and guardian of the infant sons) Versus Sheo Proshad Singh and Ors.</h3> Suraj Bunsi Koer (Mother and guardian of the infant sons) Versus Sheo Proshad Singh and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rights of infant plaintiffs and appellants versus respondents claiming as purchasers at an execution sale.2. Validity and necessity of the loan and mortgage bond executed by Adit Sahai.3. Legitimacy of the execution sale and the rights of the purchasers.4. Obligations of sons under Hindu law to pay their father's debts.5. Alienation of joint family property and the rights of coparceners.6. Effect of the father's death on the execution proceedings and the sale.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Rights of Infant Plaintiffs and Appellants versus Respondents Claiming as Purchasers at an Execution Sale:The core issue was to determine the respective rights of the infant plaintiffs and appellants and the respondents who claimed as purchasers at an execution sale of an eight anna share of mouzah Bissumbhurpore. The plaintiffs argued that their rights under the Mitakshara law, which grants sons a share in ancestral property upon birth, limited their father's power to alienate or encumber the property without justifying necessity.2. Validity and Necessity of the Loan and Mortgage Bond Executed by Adit Sahai:The Subordinate Judge found that there was no justifying necessity for the loan of Rs. 13,000 borrowed by Adit Sahai, and that the money was not used for family purposes. The bond was deemed invalid as it was executed without a bona fide inquiry into the necessity. The High Court, however, ruled that while this decision was fair against Bolaki Chowdhry (the creditor), it did not hold against the purchasers who bought the property at the execution sale.3. Legitimacy of the Execution Sale and the Rights of the Purchasers:The High Court ruled that the purchasers at the execution sale were to be treated as strangers who bought the property for valuable consideration, relying on the decree's validity. The court held that the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove the decree was improper, which they failed to do against the purchasers. However, it was found that the purchasers had notice of the plaintiffs' objections before the sale, and thus, they bought the property subject to the plaintiffs' claim.4. Obligations of Sons under Hindu Law to Pay Their Father's Debts:The judgment emphasized that under Hindu law, sons are obligated to pay their father's debts unless the debts were contracted for immoral purposes. This obligation limits the sons' ability to challenge alienations made by the father to satisfy such debts. The plaintiffs successfully proved that the debt was contracted for immoral purposes, thus not binding on them.5. Alienation of Joint Family Property and the Rights of Coparceners:The court discussed the rights of coparceners to impeach unauthorized alienations of joint family property. It was established that such alienations could be challenged unless made for legitimate family purposes. The judgment also highlighted the differing views across Indian jurisdictions on whether one coparcener could alienate his undivided share without the consent of others.6. Effect of the Father's Death on the Execution Proceedings and the Sale:The judgment considered whether the father's death before the completion of execution proceedings affected the sale. It was concluded that the execution proceedings had progressed sufficiently to create a valid charge on the property, which could not be defeated by the father's death. The purchasers acquired the father's undivided share and were entitled to enforce their rights through partition.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, reversing the High Court's decree. It was declared that the respondents acquired only the one undivided third share in the eight-anna share of mouzah Bissumbhurpore, which belonged to Adit Sahai, with the right to partition. The appellants were confirmed in possession of the property, subject to the respondents' rights. The costs in lower courts were to be apportioned as per usual practice, and the appellants were awarded the costs of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
