SUBRAMANIA REDDIAR Vs. KOLLAPURI REDDIAR AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
S. Ganesan, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput in C.M.A. No. 15 of 1965 on his file affirming the order of the learned District Munsif of Kancheepuram in E.A. No. 427 of 1964 filed by respondents herein (defendants 2 to 5 in the suit), raising the attachment of 3/12th share in the properties.
(2.) ON a promissory note executed by the first defendant and his sons (respondents 1 and 2 herein) in his favour, the appellant instituted a suit O.S. No. 104 of 1963 against all the executants. The appellant alleged in his plaint that, on 5th January, 1961, the first defendant paid a sum of Rs. 100 and acknowledged the same by an endorsement on the promissory note and that the endorsement was binding on respondents 1 and 2. The first defendant died in the course of the trial and the third defendant Manickammal, the widow of the first defendant and Arumugha Reddiar (the fourth respondent herein) another son of the first defendant were added as legal representatives in the suit. The only contention raised by all the respondents was that the first defendant did not make any endorsement of payment. The trial Court rejected their contention but upheld their further plea that the endorsement made by the first defendant was only on his own behalf and not as the joint family manager on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit against respondents 1 and 2 as barred by limitation but passed a decree with costs against the assets of the deceased first defendant in the hands of the respondents. In execution of the decree the appellant attached not only the 1/12th share which belonged to the first defendant but also the remaining 3/12th share which belonged to the respondents. Thereupon, the respondents filed E.A. No. 427 of 1964 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, for raising the attachment in respect of their 3/12th share in the properties. The learned District Munsif allowed the application holding that, though respondents 1, 2 and 4 were the undivided sons of the first defendant, they were not personally bound to discharge the decree debt from out of their share in the joint family properties as the suit in so far as they were concerned was dismissed; and the learned District Judge had confirmed the said order in appeal.
(3.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the said orders and pleads that respondents 1, 2 and 4 being the undivided sons of the first defendant are bound to discharge the debt of their father from out of their 3/12th share in the joint family properties under attachment because of the theory of pious obligation and that, in any event, the third respondent Manickammal, the widow of the first defendant was bound to discharge the debt of her husband from out of the share which she had inherited as his heir.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.