Skip to content


Karnataka Hanumantha Vs. Andukuri Hanumayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad232
AppellantKarnataka Hanumantha
RespondentAndukuri Hanumayya and ors.
Cases ReferredBapubhat v. Chenapa
Excerpt:
hindu law - civil procedure code, section 234--execution of money decree against father against sons qua representatives--survivorship--attachment. - .....the control of the court for the satisfaction of the decree. it therefore passed, on his death, to his sons by survivorship and ceased to be his property.2. there is no difference in this respect between the right of a father and of any other coparcener--suraj bunsi koer v. sheo proshad singh l.r. 6 indap 88 and although it has been ruled that the interest of the sons in ancestral estate are liable to satisfy a father's debt, this liability does not attach to the property in their hands in their representative character: zamindar of sivagiri v. alwar ayyangar i.l.r. 3 mad. 42.3. to enforce it, the decree-holder must have recourse to separate suit: udaram sitaram v. ranu panauji 11 bo. h.c.r. 76 narsingbhat bin bapubhat v. chenapa bin ningapa i.l.r. 2 bom. 479.4. the appeal is.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner. Kt., C.J.

1. The 234th Section of the Code provides that the representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor may be made parties to proceedings in execution and declares that they shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which may come to their hands, &c.; The interest of the father in the ancestral property had not been attached in his lifetime and brought under the control of the Court for the satisfaction of the decree. It therefore passed, on his death, to his sons by survivorship and ceased to be his property.

2. There is no difference in this respect between the right of a father and of any other coparcener--Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Proshad Singh L.R. 6 IndAp 88 and although it has been ruled that the interest of the sons in ancestral estate are liable to satisfy a father's debt, this liability does not attach to the property in their hands in their representative character: Zamindar of Sivagiri v. Alwar Ayyangar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 42.

3. To enforce it, the decree-holder must have recourse to separate suit: Udaram Sitaram v. Ranu Panauji 11 Bo. H.C.R. 76 Narsingbhat bin Bapubhat v. Chenapa bin Ningapa I.L.R. 2 Bom. 479.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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