Separated sons' shares in joint family property cannot be sold in execution of a decree against the father alone after partition.

After severance of status in a joint Hindu family, the father's representative capacity ends, so a decree obtained against him alone cannot be executed against the sons' separated shares unless the sons are impleaded and properly represented in execution. The court held that although joint family property may remain liable for the father's antecedent debts, the sale here could bind only the father's interest because the sons were not made parties after partition. It also held that lis pendens did not apply to a money execution proceeding, and Section 64 CPC did not validate sale of unrepresented shares.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a severance of status in a joint Hindu family, the sons' separated shares could be brought to sale in execution of a decree obtained against the father alone without making the sons parties to the execution proceedings. (ii) Whether the partition and the execution sale were affected by the doctrines of lis pendens or by Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether, after a severance of status in a joint Hindu family, the sons' separated shares could be brought to sale in execution of a decree obtained against the father alone without making the sons parties to the execution proceedings.

Analysis: The liability of joint family property for the father's antecedent debts continues even after partition, but the father's representative capacity ends with the severance of status. A decree obtained against the father when the family was joint can support execution against the sons' interests only so long as their interest is properly represented in the execution proceedings. After partition, the sons are no longer represented by the father, and if their separate shares are to be proceeded against, they must be impleaded in execution.

Conclusion: The sons' separated shares could not be validly sold in execution without making them parties; the sale bound only the father's interest.

Issue (ii): Whether the partition and the execution sale were affected by the doctrines of lis pendens or by Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies only where the proceeding directly and specifically involves a right to immovable property. An execution proceeding for recovery of money does not directly and specifically involve such a right, though the property may be the subject of attachment and sale. As to Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court held that the attempted sale could not enlarge the purchaser's rights beyond the interest properly represented in execution, and the mere attachment did not save a sale of unrepresented sons' shares.

Conclusion: Neither lis pendens nor Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assisted the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the decree-holder, having allowed the family to become divided before sale, was bound to implead the sons if their shares were sought to be sold in execution.

Ratio Decidendi: After a joint family has been severed, a decree against the father alone cannot be executed against the sons' separated shares unless they are made parties to the execution proceedings and thereby properly represented.

---