- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gaya Prasad And Another Judgment-Debtors v. Murlidhar Decree-Holder .
Factual and Procedural Background
This second appeal arises from an application by the respondent, Murlidhar, who held a decree against the appellants' father, seeking to attach and sell joint family property belonging to the appellants and their father. The respondent had filed a mortgage suit against the father and included the appellants as parties. The mortgage deed was executed only by the father and one son (not the present appellants). The suit resulted in a decree against the father and that son, but was dismissed against the appellants. During execution, the respondent sought attachment of the joint family property, which the appellants objected to, claiming the property had become their separate property due to a voluntary partition before attachment. The trial Court upheld this objection. However, on second appeal, the Additional District Judge held that the partition executed during the suit's pendency was intended to defeat the respondent's claim.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the partition of the joint family property executed during the pendency of the suit amounted to a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
- Whether the sons had a right to partition the joint family property to avoid attachment by the father's judgment-creditor.
- Whether the liability of sons to pay the father's debts extends to their separate property post-partition.
- Whether the partition can be set aside solely on the ground that it defeats or delays the judgment-creditor's claim.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The partition dated 15th August 1925 did not constitute a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
- The sons had a lawful right to partition the joint family property to avoid risking attachment by the father's judgment-creditor.
Respondent's Arguments
- From the moment the father incurred a debt, the joint family property existing then became liable for that debt.
- The partition executed during the pendency of the suit was a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat the respondent's claim.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bhagwant v. Kedari [1901] 25 Bom. 202 | Clarification that mere probability or certainty of transfer delaying a creditor is insufficient to invoke Section 53 without evidence of fraud or grossly inadequate consideration. | The Court relied on this decision to hold that the partition was not fraudulent merely because it delayed or defeated the respondent’s claim, absent other evidence of fraud. |
| Indarpal v. Imperial Bank of India [1915] 37 All. 214 | Held that a partition between father and sons after a decree against the father could be set aside if collusively and fraudulently made to defeat a creditor. | The Court distinguished this case, noting uncertainty about timing and lack of evidence of fraud, concluding it did not support invalidating the partition here. |
| Krishansami Konan v. Ramasami Ayyar [1899] 22 Mad. 519 | Supports the principle that a son’s liability to pay father's debts ceases after partition if it occurs before attachment. | Referenced by the concurring judge to affirm that partition relieves sons of liability for father's debts. |
| Vinjamampati Peda Venkanna v. Vadlamannti Sreenivasa Deekshatulu [1918] 41 Mad. 186 | Similar principle as above regarding cessation of liability post-partition before attachment. | Also cited by the concurring judge to support the view on partition and liability. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the nature of liability of sons for their father's debts under Hindu law, emphasizing that such liability is confined to their undivided interest in joint family property and does not extend to their separate property. The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that joint family property automatically becomes liable upon incurring of the debt, citing established legal principles and Mulla's Hindu Law. It held that a father cannot bind joint family property by transfers not made for family necessity or antecedent debt.
The Court further reasoned that the partition executed just before the respondent obtained his decree ended the joint family property, converting it into separate property of the sons, which cannot be attached to satisfy the father's debt. The critical question was whether the partition was fraudulent under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found that the mere effect of delaying or defeating the creditor's claim is insufficient to establish fraud. There was no evidence of grossly inadequate consideration or other factors raising a presumption of fraud.
The Court distinguished the precedent in Indarpal v. Imperial Bank of India, noting the absence of clear findings of fraud and the timing of the partition relative to attachment. It concluded that sons have the right to partition joint family property with their father up to the point of attachment to prevent attachment of their separate property, and such partitions are not voidable simply because they defeat creditor claims.
Accordingly, the Court held that the lower appellate Court misapplied Section 53 by treating the partition as voidable solely because it defeated the respondent's claim. The Court restored the trial Court's decision allowing the appellants' objection to attachment.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED the respondent’s appeal and restored the trial Court’s decision.
The direct effect of this decision is that a partition of joint family property executed by a father and sons before attachment by a judgment-creditor is valid and not voidable merely because it delays or defeats the creditor’s claim. Sons’ liability for the father's debts does not extend to their separate property post-partition. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding partition, liability, and fraud under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
1. This second appeal arises out of an application by the respondent, Murlidhar, who had a decree against the father of the appellants, to attach and put up for sale the joint family property belonging to the appellants and their father.
2. The respondent brought a suit on a mortgage against the father and impleaded the appellants. It was found that the mortgage-deed had only been executed by the father and one son (other than the present appellants). A simple decree was given against the father and son, and the suit was dismissed as against the present appellants. In execution the judgment-decree-holder sought to attach the joint family property. Objection to this attachment was raised by the present appellants on the ground that at the date when the attachment was asked for what had been the joint family property of the father and the present appellants had become their separate property by a voluntary partition. The trial Court allowed this objection. In second appeal the Additional District Judge of Aligarh held that the partition between the father and his sons (present appellants) was executed daring the pendency of the suit and to all intents and purposes was executed in order to defeat the appellants' claim.
3. In this second appeal by the sons it is contended that there was no evidence to justify the finding of the lower appellate Court that the partition of the 15th August 1925 amounted to a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of Section 53, Transfer of Property Act, and that the sons had a right to partition the joint family property in order to avoid the risk of their father's judgment-creditor attaching the whole of the joint family property in execution of the decree against the father.
4. The appeal is resisted on two grounds. The first ground taken up is that from the moment when a father incurs a debt, which is not for immoral purposes, the joint family property, as it exists at the time when the debt is incurred, becomes liable for the debt of the father. No authority has been shown to us to justify this contention. The contrary appears to be too well established to need reference to any decision. The rule as set forth in Mulla's Hindu Law is as follows:
It is now well established that the special liability imposed by Hindu law on sons and grandsons as such to pay the debts of their father and grandfather is not a personal liability. It is confined to their undivided interest in the joint family property.; that is to say the separate property of the sons and grandsons is in no case liable for the debts of their father and grandfather; the liability arises only (1) if the sons and grandsons are joint with their father and grand-father and (2) there is a joint family property.
5. To hold otherwise, it appears to us, would in effect entirely nullify the rule of law so emphatically laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council that a father cannot bind the joint property by a transfer which is not for family necessity or in consideration of an antecedent debt. If from the moment that he incurred a personal debt the joint property became liable, notwithstanding that it might subsequently be the subject of partition, then the transfer by father would be as operative against the joint property as if there had been no such rule of law to the contrary.
6. We hold that the liability imposed on the sons only continues as long as they are joint in property. The partition which took place in this case just before the respondent obtained his decree, if not liable to be set aside, was a partition which put an end to the existence of joint family property; that is to say property in the joint ownership of the appellants and respondent. From that moment there was no property in which the sons were interested that could be attached or sold in execution of the decree against the father. The sole question is whether that partition is liable to be set aside or avoided by the respondent. The lower appellate Court apparently relied on Section 53, Transfer of Property Act. It appears that the evidence relied upon for attracting that section was the fact that the effect of the partition was to defeat or delay the claim of the respondent which was then sub-judice, but the mere fact that the partition had this effect (which effect may be admitted) will not justify the application of Section 53, Transfer of Property Act. What may be described as the leading decision on the matter is contained in Bhagwant v. Kedari [1901] 25 Bom. 202. It was there held that the mere probability or even certainty of a transfer having the effect of delaying or defeating the attachment by a judgment-creditor was not a sufficient reason for invoking Section 53, and that in such a case there must either be the additional fact of the transfer being for a grossly inadequate consideration or something else which would raise a presumption of fraud. There can be no question in this case of inadequate consideration. What the father gave by the partition agreement was joint ownership in the whole property in consideration of receiving absolute ownership of a portion of the property.
7. Again the judgment of the lower Court fails to point put any other evidence on which an inference of fraud could be based. We must, therefore, presume that there was no other evidence. Indeed it is clear that the lower appellate Court thought that it was sufficient to show that the result of the partition would be to delay or defeat the respondent. We fail to see how it can be fraudulent for a son to exercise a right of partition which pre-existed the incurring of the debt by the father. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the sons of a father at any time up to attachment of the joint family property can enter into a partition with their father with the express object of avoiding attachment of what up to the time of the partition has been joint family property. If they do so their individual property acquired by the partition will not be liable to attachment. The partition can only be set aside on evidence showing fraud, and the mere fact of the desire to save their property will not be sufficient to justify an inference of fraud. The only decision at all to the point which has been brought to our notice is that of Indarpal v. Imperial Bank of India [1915] 37 All. 214. This was a decision by a two Judge Bench of this Court. Both the Judges, held that a partition between a father and sons effected just after a decree against the father could be held by the lower Court to have been collusively and fraudulently made to defeat the creditor, The reported judgment does not make it clear beyond all doubt that the partition took place between the date when the creditor obtained his decree and the date when attachment of the property was applied for. If it took place after attachment was applied for, then the decision in no way disagrees with the view taken by us. Assuming, however, that it took place before attachment was applied for, no facts are set forth in the judgment to show on what basis the trial Court had held the partition to be made collusively and fraudulently. It is not stated in the decision that the mere fact that it had the effect of defeating or delaying the attachment of the joint family property was sufficient per se to justify a finding that the partition was collusive and fraudulent. The decision, therefore, affords no safe precedent. If it could be construed to mean that the mere fact that the object of the sons was to save the joint family property from the hands of the creditors of the father rendered the partition voidable then we should feel constrained to disagree with it.
8. For the above reasons we are of the opinion that the lower appellate Court in holding that the partition-deed was voidable under Section 53, Transfer of Property Act, (it is clear that Court invokes Section 53 because it uses the words ("in order to defeat the appellants' claim ") was misconstruing the section. In other words the Court was applying a rule of law that did not exist in the form applied. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, and restore the decision of the trial Court. The appellants should get their costs in the lower appellate Court and in this.
Kendall, J.
9. I agree with the order passed, In my opinion, the dictum in Mulla's Hindu Law that a son's pious obligation to pay his father's personal debt is not a personal liability must be interpreted to mean that it will not follow the son after he has been separated from his father by a partition. It is clearly wrong to argue that it is a liability that is attached to his property because then we should be faced with this position that a father by incurring a personal debt could create a charge on the joint family property of himself and his sons. It is well known that he cannot do so except for legal necessity or for antecedent debt. When a partition takes place, however, as has been held by a number of authorities, among which may be mentioned Krishansami Konan v. Ramasami Ayyar [1899] 22 Mad. 519 and Vinjamampati Peda Venkanna v. Vadlamannti Sreenivasa Deekshatulu [1918] 41 Mad. 186, the son rids himself of his liability to pay his father's debt provided that the partition takes place before the property has been actually attached.
Alert