https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289034 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 court emphasized the sons' liability to pay the father's debt under Hindu law and clarified the procedural aspects of enforcing this liability. The money appeals were dismissed, affirming that the plaintiff was not entitled to joint possession or profits from the date of purchase. en-us Mon, 05 Oct 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:25:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289034 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 court emphasized the sons' liability to pay the father's debt under Hindu law and clarified the procedural aspects of enforcing this liability. The money appeals were dismissed, affirming that the plaintiff was not entitled to joint possession or profits from the date of purchase. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Oct 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289034