Commercial debt from husband's partnership business can attach common matrimonial assets when incurred for the spouses' common gain.

Liability arising from the husband's participation in a partnership business was treated as a commercial debt chargeable against the common matrimonial estate. The objection based on the right of moiety and the Portuguese Civil Code was rejected because the real issue was the character of the debt and its connection with commercial activity. Order XXI, Rule 50(2) CPC was held not to assist the appellant. The Court applied Article 15 of the Portuguese Commercial Code, not Article 10, and accepted the presumption that the debt was incurred for the common gain of the spouses, validating attachment and sale of the common assets.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could resist attachment and sale of the matrimonial/common properties on the ground that the husband's partnership debt was not enforceable against the undivided common estate, and whether the liability fell within the regime of the Portuguese Civil Code or the Portuguese Commercial Code.

Analysis: The appellant's objection based on the right of moiety and the rule applicable to debts of spouses under the Portuguese Civil Code was rejected because the liability in question arose from the husband's active participation in the partnership business. The Court held that Order XXI, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure did not assist the appellant, as the decree was sought to be executed against the assets of a partner and the real question was the nature of the debt and the liability attached to the husband's commercial activity. The Court further held that the facts attracted Article 15 of the Portuguese Commercial Code, which deals with debts arising from commercial acts contracted solely by the husband in the exercise of his business activity, and not Article 10 of that Code. The appellant failed to rebut the presumption that the liability was for the common gain of the couple.

Conclusion: The attachment and sale of the common assets were held valid, and the appellant's challenge failed.

---