Skip to content


Chhedi Rai and anr. Vs. Ram Kishan Rai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1922)ILR44All628
AppellantChhedi Rai and anr.
RespondentRam Kishan Rai
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint hindu family--liability of sons for father's debts--bonds executed in renewal of previous bonds which were time-barred. - .....is no doubt whatever that the father was competent to execute the present simple bonds in lieu of time-barred debts. against him the contract would have been a valid one under section 25, clause (3), of the indian contract act. moreover, the hindu law does not recognize any rule as to the extinction of claims by the efflux of time, so that looked at from any point of view the bonds in dispute amounted to a valid contract made by the father. the father being dead, the sons were liable to pay the money which their father was bound to pay. this view finds support in narayanasami chetti v. samidas mudali (1883) i.l.r. 6 mad. 293. in our opinion the decree of the lower appellate court was a correct one. we accordingly confirm the decree of the lower appellate court and dismiss this appeal.....
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of the amount due to them on three bonds executed by the father of the defendant. The only plea which has been argued before us is one of limitation. The case has been put before us by the learned vakil for the appellant in this form. He said that on the date the father executed the bonds which are now being sued upon, the earlier bonds in exchange for which the fresh bonds were executed had become barred by time and, therefore, there was no consideration for them and execution of these bonds would not be binding on the sons. There is no doubt whatever that the father was competent to execute the present simple bonds in lieu of time-barred debts. Against him the contract would have been a valid one under Section 25, Clause (3), of the Indian Contract Act. Moreover, the Hindu law does not recognize any rule as to the extinction of claims by the efflux of time, so that looked at from any point of view the bonds in dispute amounted to a valid contract made by the father. The father being dead, the sons were liable to pay the money which their father was bound to pay. This view finds support in Narayanasami Chetti v. Samidas Mudali (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 293. In our opinion the decree of the lower appellate court was a correct one. We accordingly confirm the decree of the lower appellate court and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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