LUHAR AMRIT LAL NAGJI Vs. DOSHI JAYANTILAL JETHALAL
LAWS(SC)-1960-5-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on May 04,1960

LUHAR AMRIT LAL NAGJI Appellant
VERSUS
DOSHI JAYANTILAL JETHALAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VENUGOPALA NAIDU V. RAMANATHAN CHETTY [REFERRED]
BRIJ NARAIN VS. MANGLA PRASAD [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

DUDH NATH VS. SAT NARAIN RAM [LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
BANSI LAL VS. KULDIP RAJ [LAWS(J&K)-1980-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPATIRAJU SREERAMARAJU VS. NADIMPALLI PULLAM RAJU [LAWS(APH)-1962-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
CHITYALA VENKATA SATYANARAYANAMURTHI VS. CHITYALA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANAMURTHI [LAWS(APH)-1965-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
J DEVARAJA RAO VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER ANANTAPUR [LAWS(APH)-1970-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHANUMURI SUBHAVENI VS. SAPPA SRINIVASA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2004-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
MODADUGU VENKATA SUBBAMMA VS. KANAMARLAPUDI RATTAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-77] [REFERRED TO]
KALAPPA DYANAPPA AND VS. VENKATESH ALIAS RAMACHANDRA GANESH PADAKI [LAWS(KAR)-1961-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
NINGAPPA ADVIVAPPA DESAI VS. MADIVALAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1990-7-79] [REFFERRED TO ,REF.; 2.]
SASTHA PILLAI INDIRAMMAL VS. NARAYANA PILLAI KOCHUPARAVATHI AMMAL [LAWS(KER)-1973-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPOORNA AMMAL VS. ASOKAN [LAWS(MAD)-1983-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
SRIDHARAN VS. AMMUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-1993-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA MARUTI BHOYAR VS. RAMESH NARAYAN GAWANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-199] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA S O MURATI BHOYER VS. RAMESH S O NARAYAN GAWANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR CHAND VS. SARDARNI HARNAM KAURDEAD [LAWS(SC)-1966-8-20] [REFERRED]
KOLASANI SIVAKUMARI VS. KOLASANI SAMBASIVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-108] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBI ALIAS GIRI VS. V M DURAISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-203] [REFERRED TO]
POOCHENDU AMMAL VS. MINOR JAYAMURUGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-211] [REFERRED TO]
NEMI CHAND VS. HARAK CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1964-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN VS. SARDAR CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1971-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDAR BHARTIA VS. GOURISHANKAR BHARTIA [LAWS(CAL)-1979-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
DHONDOPANT MADHAVRAO INDE VS. ASHOK HARIBHAU PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-1977-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL KUMAR SHARMA VS. CATHOLIC CHURCH, JAMMU [LAWS(J&K)-1985-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
CATHOLIC CHURCH VS. VISHAL KUMAR [LAWS(J&K)-1989-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
PALAPARTHI MANIKYAM VS. PALAPARTHI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
V. MURUGAN VS. R. SANKAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1998-3-222] [REFERRED TO]
M. THANGAVEL VS. R. RAJENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
J. DEVARAJA RAO AND OTHERS VS. INCOME [LAWS(APH)-1964-6-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave raises an interesting question of Hindu Law. If a Hindu son wants to challenge an alienation made by his father to pay his antecedent debt is it necessary for him to prove not only that the said antecedent debt was immoral but also that the alienee had notice of the immoral character of the said debt The High Court has held that the son must prove both the immoral character of the debt and notice of it to the alienee; the correctness of that view is challenged before us by the appellants in the present appeal.
(2.)The appellants are two brothers Amritlal and Mohanlal Nagji and their mother Bai Jakal Arjan. The three appellants and respondent 2 Nagji Govind, the father of appellants 1 and 2 and the husband of appellant 3, constitute an undivided Hindu family. Respondent 2 executed a mortgage-deed in favour of respondent 1 Jayantilal Doshi in respect of the joint family property for Rs. 2,000. This document was executed on February 5, 1946. In 1950, respondent 1 sued respondent 2 on his mortgage, obtained a decree for sale and filed an application for execution for sale of the mortgaged property. Sale was accordingly ordered to be held. At that stage the appellants filed the present suit on April 30, 1951, and claimed a declaration that the decree passed in the mortgage suit (Civil Suit No. 589 of 1949) in favour of respondent 1 and against respondent 2 was not binding in respect of the 3/4 the share of the appellants in the mortgaged property; they also asked for a perpetual injunction restraining respondent 1 from executing the said decree in respect of their share. To this suit the mortgagor respondent 2 was impleaded as a party.
(3.)In their plaint the appellants have stated that respondent 2 had speculated in gold and silver and had thereby lost a large amount of money which he sought to make up by borrowing amounts from several creditors. One of such creditors was Dharsi Shamji to whom Rs. 2,000 were payable by respondent 2. According to the appellants the impugned mortgage had been executed by respondent 2 for the payment of the said debt of Rs. 2,000, and since the said debt was immoral or avyavaharik the appellants were not bound by it.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.