1958 (8) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Income Tax and Sales-tax Departments in preference to the appellant. The appellant who was one of the creditors of the said Kondapaneni Krishnaiah filed a Suit O. S. No. 103 of 1950 and obtained a decree. In execution of it, he brought the properties of the judgment-debtors to sale and a sum of ₹ 13012-8-0 being the sale-proceeds was deposited into court at that time. The Income Tax Department and the Sales-tax Authorities filed applications asking for payment of these amounts claiming priority. E. A. 455/54 was by the Income Tax Department claiming ₹ 55,334-3-0 due under Exs. A-1 to A-3, Exs.A-1 and A-2 being the assessment orders for the years 1947-48 and 1948-49 and Ex. A-3, order under Section 28(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by reason of this doctrine provided they were not incurred for illegal or immoral purposes. A decree obtained against the father can be executed against the interests of the sons in the joint family property if the debts are not immoral or illegal. It is argued for the respondents that the creditor of the father is equally that of the sons and has the same rights as against them: We cannot accept the proposition so broadly stated since it is subject to a qualification, namely, that there is no personal liability arising out of an obligation of the sons to pay off the father's debt on the basis of the theory of pious obligation. It follows that the priority which a State has got in regard to the payments extends to a liability founded ....