TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Supreme Court Restores Plaintiff's Share in Disputed Properties</h1> <h3>Sidheshwar Mukherjee Versus Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the main appeal, restoring the trial judge's decree that the plaintiff was entitled to a 4 annas share in the disputed ... - Issues Involved:1. Extent of the plaintiff's share in the disputed properties.2. Liability of the sons to pay the father's debt.3. Procedure for enforcing the liability of the sons.4. Entitlement of the plaintiff to joint possession and profits from the date of purchase.Detailed Analysis:1. Extent of the Plaintiff's Share in the Disputed Properties:The primary issue in the main appeal concerns the extent of the plaintiff's legal title to the disputed properties. The trial judge allowed the plaintiff's claim to a 4 annas share, but the High Court reduced this to 1 anna 4 pies. The dispute centers on whether the plaintiff could claim a 4 annas share based on the execution sale and subsequent conveyance.2. Liability of the Sons to Pay the Father's Debt:The core legal question is whether the sons of defendant No. 1 were liable to pay the father's debt under the Mitakshara law. The doctrine imposes a duty on descendants to pay the debts of their ancestor, provided they are not tainted with immorality. The judgment clarifies that this obligation exists irrespective of the father's role as the manager or karta of the joint family. The liability is confined to the assets received by the sons in their share of the joint family property or their interest in the same. The court held that the sons were liable to discharge the decretal debt due by their father since the debt was not shown to be immoral or irreligious.3. Procedure for Enforcing the Liability of the Sons:The judgment addresses whether the sons' interest in the coparcenary property could be attached and sold without making them parties to the suit and execution proceedings. It was held that the sons were not necessary parties to the money suit against the father. The creditor could realize his dues by attaching and selling the sons' coparcenary interest in the joint property. The court found that the executing court intended to sell and did sell a four annas share in the joint property, including the undivided interest of the sons. The sons had the opportunity to contest the debt's validity in the partition suit but failed to do so.4. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Joint Possession and Profits from the Date of Purchase:In the money appeals, the plaintiff sought recovery of his 4 annas share of the income or profits from the properties. The High Court held that the plaintiff only acquired an undivided interest in the joint property and was not entitled to joint possession or profits from the date of his purchase. The plaintiff's right to possession would commence from the date of specific allotment made in his favor through a partition suit. The Supreme Court upheld this view, dismissing the money appeals.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the main appeal, restoring the trial judge's decree that the plaintiff was entitled to a 4 annas share in the disputed properties. The money appeals were dismissed, affirming that the plaintiff was not entitled to joint possession or profits from the date of purchase. The court emphasized the sons' liability to pay the father's debt under Hindu law and clarified the procedural aspects of enforcing this liability.
TaxTMI 
