Skip to content


Yenamandra Sitaramasami Vs. Midatana Sanyasi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad400
AppellantYenamandra Sitaramasami
RespondentMidatana Sanyasi and anr.
Excerpt:
hindu law - partition suit--mortgage by father--son's rights--burden of proof. - - unless the respondents proved that the purpose (or which the debt was incurred was such, or that they in good faith believed it to have been such, as justified the mortgage, they cannot rely on that instrument except in so far as it affects the father's share......it must be shown that the moneys were required for necessary purposes, in which is now included payment by a father of an antecedent debt which it would be a pious duty in the son to discharge. unless the respondents proved that the purpose (or which the debt was incurred was such, or that they in good faith believed it to have been such, as justified the mortgage, they cannot rely on that instrument except in so far as it affects the father's share.2. a son is, however, bound to discharge a debt of the father which he cannot how to have been contracted for an improper purpose to the extent of ancestral property which may come to his hands.3. in a suit brought against him to enforce that liability, the burden of proof as to the nature of the debt would lie on him.4. we reverse the.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. In order to sustain a mortgage by a Hindu father it must be shown that the moneys were required for necessary purposes, in which is now included payment by a father of an antecedent debt which it would be a pious duty in the son to discharge. Unless the respondents proved that the purpose (or which the debt was incurred was such, or that they in good faith believed it to have been such, as justified the mortgage, they cannot rely on that instrument except in so far as it affects the father's share.

2. A son is, however, bound to discharge a debt of the father which he cannot how to have been contracted for an improper purpose to the extent of ancestral property which may come to his hands.

3. In a suit brought against him to enforce that liability, the burden of proof as to the nature of the debt would lie on him.

4. We reverse the decree in respect of a one-fourth share of one visam of the field known as Konupulugaruvu and decree the claim; but as the plaintiff has not offered to discharge the father's debt, we shall direct both parties to bear their own costs.


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