https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191367 The Supreme Court ruled that the deed of partition did not create a charge in favor of the bank, and as the bank was not a party to the deed, it could not enforce any alleged charge. The court clarified that the debt under the letter of guarantee was personal to the deceased and not converted into a secured debt for the bank. Consequently, M.C. Chacko was not personally liable for the debt, and the properties allotted to him were not liable to satisfy it. The decision emphasized the limitations on non-parties enforcing contract terms and distinguished between contractual and equitable rights. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:21:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191367 The Supreme Court ruled that the deed of partition did not create a charge in favor of the bank, and as the bank was not a party to the deed, it could not enforce any alleged charge. The court clarified that the debt under the letter of guarantee was personal to the deceased and not converted into a secured debt for the bank. Consequently, M.C. Chacko was not personally liable for the debt, and the properties allotted to him were not liable to satisfy it. The decision emphasized the limitations on non-parties enforcing contract terms and distinguished between contractual and equitable rights. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191367