Skip to content


Lalit Mohan Pal Roy Vs. Dayamoyi Roy Chowdhurani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1927)29BOMLR759
AppellantLalit Mohan Pal Roy
RespondentDayamoyi Roy Chowdhurani
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
hindu law-auction sale on foot of moneylender's decree-extent of interest that passed.;a minor's guardian as such executed a bond for monies advanced to pay off debts due by the minor's father, bat it created no charge on the estate. a decree on the bond being obtained in a suit filed against the guardian and minor personally, the property was sold by the order of the court; the decree-holder becoming the purchaser. the plaintiff having succeeded, on the minor's death, to the estate, sued for possession :-;affirming the high court, that the estate was not liable as the proceedings on the bond were against the minor personally and not as representing her father's estate. - .....of the record where their lordships say :-it is possible that although no charge was created, the original debt having been for lawful purposes, the creditor might have recovered his debt from the estate left by bharat, if he had chosen to do so, but in order to make the estate liable he ought to have framed his suit in a proper manner. what he asked for was simply to have a personal decree against monomohini and the guardian who was made the second defendant. the court passed a decree against the minor alone. it does not appear anywhere that the minor was made a party to the suit as representing her father's estate.2. their lordships will only add to this that they have been very much struck by the different framing of the two suits : the suit against the father's estate in which the.....
Judgment:

Phillimore, J.

1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court is right for the reasons given by that Court and especially for the reasons at line 25 on p. 4 of the second part of the record where their Lordships say :-

It is possible that although no charge was created, the original debt having been for lawful purposes, the creditor might have recovered his debt from the estate left by Bharat, if he had chosen to do so, But in order to make the estate liable he ought to have framed his suit in a proper manner. What he asked for was simply to have a personal decree against Monomohini and the guardian who was made the second defendant. The Court passed a decree against the minor alone. It does not appear anywhere that the minor was made a party to the suit as representing her father's estate.

2. Their Lordships will only add to this that they have been very much struck by the different framing of the two suits : the suit against the father's estate in which the original debt was created, and the suit against Monomohini and her guardian.

3. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.


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