Skip to content


Narsinbhat BIn Bapubhat Vs. Chenapa BIn Ningapa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1878)ILR2Bom479
AppellantNarsinbhat BIn Bapubhat
RespondentChenapa BIn Ningapa
Excerpt:
undivided hindu family - ancestral property--liability of an undivided hindu for the debts of his deceased brother. - - 76. the liability of joint family property in the hands of a son or grandson for the debts of the father of the one and the grandfather of the other, is there shown to be exceptional......was instituted against parapa on the 1st december 1874. ningangavda died on the 2nd july 1875. parapa ningangavda, and the defendant chenapa were, at the decease of parapai members of an undivided hindu family. ningangavda and chenapa continued undivided until the death, of ningangavda. on his death chenapa became, by survivorship, entitled to the whole of the family property. no separate property belonging to parapa or ningangavda is shown to have come to the hands of chenapa or to exist. chenapa, in his written statement filed on the 12th 'june 1875, objected that ningangavda ought to be made a party to the suit, but he never was made a party to it. chenapa never was personally responsible for the separate debt of his brother parapa, or nephew ningangavda, and the joint family.....
Judgment:

Michael Westeopp, C.J.

1. This is a suit against Chenapa on a bond executed by his brother Parapa as surety for one Rango. Parapa died on 7th August 1874 leaving a son, Ningangavda. This suit was instituted against Parapa on the 1st December 1874. Ningangavda died on the 2nd July 1875. Parapa Ningangavda, and the defendant Chenapa were, at the decease of Parapai members of an undivided Hindu family. Ningangavda and Chenapa continued undivided until the death, of Ningangavda. On his death Chenapa became, by survivorship, entitled to the whole of the family property. No separate property belonging to Parapa or Ningangavda is shown to have come to the hands of Chenapa or to exist. Chenapa, in his written statement filed on the 12th 'June 1875, objected that Ningangavda ought to be made a party to the suit, but he never was made a party to it. Chenapa never was personally responsible for the separate debt of his brother Parapa, or nephew Ningangavda, and the joint family property, which has now, as stated, vested by survivorship in Chenapa, is not in his hands liable for their separate debts, as shown by the. authorities quoted in Udaram Sitaram v. Ranu Panduji 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 76. The liability of joint family property in the hands of a son or grandson for the debts of the father of the one and the grandfather of the other, is there shown to be exceptional. It is not asserted here that Parapa entered into his suretyship for Rango for the benefit of the undivided family to which Parapa belonged; nor is it pretended that he executed any mortgage or gave any other special lien on his share in the family property.

2. On these grounds we affirm the decree with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //