Skip to content


Debi Dat Vs. Jadu Rai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR24All459
AppellantDebi Dat
RespondentJadu Rai and ors.
Cases ReferredNanomi Babuasin v. Modhun Mohun
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint hindu family--mortgage--liability of non-executant members on a mortgage executed by some only of the members of a joint hindu family--burden of proof. - .....father and grandfather, and it was sought to make the mortgaged property, which was the joint family property of all these persons, liable under the mortgage. the courts below, relying on the ruling of this court in jamna v. nain sukh (1887) i.l.r. 9 all. 493 have exempted from liability the shares of the defendant mul chand and the grandsons. the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. it is true that the ruling referred to above has not in express terms been overruled; but having regard to the later full bench ruling in badri prasad v. madan lal (1893) i.l.r. 15 all. 75 and to the ruling of the privy council in nanomi babuasin v. modhun mohun (1885) i.l.r. 13 calc. 21 it can no longer be considered as law. the sons and grandsons of a mortgagor can only dispute the validity of the.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. This was a suit for sale upon a mortgage dated the 5th of November, 1895, executed by the first four defendants, namely, Jadu Rai and his three sons. The other defendants are a son of Jadu Rai and the sons of Gajadhar and Birj Lal, defendants. These persons were joined as lefendants, as they were members of a joint Hindu family with their father and grandfather, and it was sought to make the mortgaged property, which was the joint family property of all these persons, liable under the mortgage. The Courts below, relying on the ruling of this Court in Jamna v. Nain Sukh (1887) I.L.R. 9 All. 493 have exempted from liability the shares of the defendant Mul Chand and the grandsons. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal. It is true that the ruling referred to above has not in express terms been overruled; but having regard to the later Full Bench ruling in Badri Prasad v. Madan Lal (1893) I.L.R. 15 All. 75 and to the ruling of the Privy Council in Nanomi Babuasin v. Modhun Mohun (1885) I.L.R. 13 Calc. 21 it can no longer be considered as law. The sons and grandsons of a mortgagor can only dispute the validity of the mortgage either on the ground that the debt was never incurred or is no longer in existence, or that it was tainted with immorality. None of these pleas were set up in this case. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to the decree which he had asked for. We allow the appeal and vary the decree of the Court below by decreeing the plaintiff's claim against the whole of the property comprised in the mortgage, and we fix the 9th of November, 1902, as the date by which the mortgage money must be paid. The appellant will have his costs in this Court and in the Courts below. We direct that our decree be drawn up in accordance with the terms of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act.


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