1978 (9) TMI 197 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court validates joint family debt liability on property in revenue sale case.

Vyankates Dhonddeo Deshpande Versus Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni & Others

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. It held that the Tagai loan was a joint family debt, the property was liable for ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the revenue sale of joint family property.2. Nature of the Tagai loan and its binding effect on joint family property.3. Doctrine of pious obligation of Hindu sons to pay the father's debts.4. Impact of partition on the liability of joint family property for pre-partition debts.5. Applicability of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 to joint Hindu families.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Revenue Sale of Joint Family Property:The trial court held that the suit land was joint family property but ruled the sale void due to an effective partition prior to the revenue sale. The High Court upheld this, stating the auction sale was not binding as the land was not offered as security for the loan. However, the Supreme Court reversed this, emphasizing that the joint family property was liable for the debt incurred by the father as Karta for the family's benefit. The Court concluded that the sale was valid and the purchaser acquired full title to the property.2. Nature of the Tagai Loan and Its Binding Effect on Joint Family Property:The Supreme Court examined whether the Tagai loan was a personal debt of Dattatraya or a joint family debt. It found that the loan was borrowed for improving joint family lands, making it a joint family debt. The Court stated, 'If the loan was borrowed by Dattatraya, the father, as Karta of the joint Hindu family for the benefit of the family, certainly it would be a joint family debt and all the joint family property would be liable for this debt.'3. Doctrine of Pious Obligation of Hindu Sons to Pay the Father's Debts:The Court reiterated that under Hindu law, sons are obligated to pay their father's debts unless tainted with illegality or immorality. This obligation persists even after partition. The Court noted, 'The doctrine of pious obligation is not merely a religious doctrine but has passed into the realm of law.' The sons' liability extends to the joint family property in their hands, reaffirming that the sale for the father's debt was valid.4. Impact of Partition on the Liability of Joint Family Property for Pre-Partition Debts:The Court clarified that if no provision for repayment of joint family debts is made at partition, the joint family property remains liable for those debts. The Court cited, 'If thus the partition makes no provision for repayment of just debts payable out of the joint family property, the joint family property in the hands of coparceners acquired on partition as well as the pious obligation of the sons to pay the debts of the father will still remain.'5. Applicability of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 to Joint Hindu Families:The High Court's view that the Act applies only to individuals was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the Karta of a joint Hindu family could be a borrower under the Act, making the joint family property liable for the loan. The Court stated, 'We see no justification for restricting the word 'borrower' to be an individual alone.' The Act's applicability to all communities does not exclude joint Hindu families.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. It held that the Tagai loan was a joint family debt, the property was liable for its repayment, and the revenue sale was valid. The doctrine of pious obligation and the comprehensive scope of the Land Improvement Loans Act supported the binding nature of the debt on the joint family property. The Court concluded, 'The sale is valid and the purchaser acquired a full and complete title to the property.' The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs throughout.