Skip to content


Sakhireddy Appalaswamy Vs. Sakhireddy Venkanna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Mad118(2); 24Ind.Cas.534
AppellantSakhireddy Appalaswamy
RespondentSakhireddy Venkanna and ors.
Cases Referred and Ramasami Chetti v. Mangaik
Excerpt:
hindu law - widow--husband's debt--alicnation of husband's estate to pay off interest--income not sufficient--validity. - .....the interest on debts due by him, that the interest on such debts is primarily payable out of the income of the property in which the widow has a life--estate though she may alienate part of such property for the purpose of discharging the interest if it is shown that there was no surplus income available for the payment of the interest.--boddn jaggayya v. goli appala iiaju 18 ind. cas 275 : (1913) m.w.n. 275. and ramasami chetti v. mangaik-arasu nachiar 18 m. 113. the findings of both the lower courts are that exhibit iii was executed in favour of a bona fide purchaser and that it is binding to the full extent on the appellant. the district munsif does consider the question of there being any income out of which the interest could have baeri paid. but it is true that neither court.....
Judgment:

1. The only question arising in this appeal is whether the alienation evidenced by Exhibit III is binding upon the appellant. Exhibit III was executed by a 'widow having a life--interest in her deceased husband's estate. It is now conceded that debts for Rs. 500 were due by the deceased and that to the extent to which Exhibit III was executed for payment of those debts it is binding on the appellant. It is argued, however, that the widow was not entitled to alienate property belonging to her husband for the purpose of paying the interest on debts due by him, that the interest on such debts is primarily payable out of the income of the property in which the widow has a life--estate though she may alienate part of such property for the purpose of discharging the interest if it is shown that there was no surplus income available for the payment of the interest.--Boddn Jaggayya v. Goli Appala Iiaju 18 Ind. Cas 275 : (1913) M.W.N. 275. and Ramasami Chetti v. Mangaik-arasu Nachiar 18 M. 113. The findings of both the lower Courts are that Exhibit III was executed in favour of a bona fide purchaser and that it is binding to the full extent on the appellant. The District Munsif does consider the question of there being any income out of which the interest could have baeri paid. But it is true that neither Court expressly differentiates between the two parts of the consideration for Exhibit III, namely, (1) the principal debt due by the deceased (2) interest payable thereon. Under these circumstances, the appellant asks us to call for a definite finding on the question.

2. Our attention is drawn to the fact, however, that point was not taken in the lower Courts in this form. It is clear that neither the issues nor the grounds of appeal to the lower Court or to this Court distinctly raiso the question. Nevertheless it is a point of law and refers to the mode in which the Court should.have considered the evidence and adjudicated upon the rights of the parties and we might have called for a finding, were it not for the fact that the District Munsif has expressed himself against the credibility of the plaintiff's witnesses as regards the fertility of the lands, on which depended the question of sufficiency of means for paying the interest : it is also abundantly clear, that the purchaser was a bona fide transferee and that if the question had to be critically examined from that aspect there are several indications that the decision of the lower Courts would be in favour of the validity of the alienation, It would, therefore, be a futile formality to call for a finding and we will dismiss this second appeal with costs.


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