9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a payment made after partition by a member of a Hindu family of interest due on a promissory note executed by the managing member when the family was joint starts a fresh period of limitation against the other members of the family. 2. The applicability of Section 20 and Section 21 of the Limitation Act in the context of payments made by one member of a Hindu undivided family. 3. The nature of liability of a Hindu son to pay his father's debts and a member of a joint family in respect of a family debt. 4. The relevance of judicial precedents in determining the liability of family members post-partition. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Fresh Period of Limitation Post-Partition The primary issue in this appeal is whether a payment made by a member of a Hindu family after partition, which was acknowledged by the person who made it, starts a fresh period of limitation against the other members of the family. The Court noted that there were conflicting decisions on this matter, necessitating a Full Bench decision. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 20 and Section 21 of the Limitation Act Section 20 of the Limitation Act states that a payment of interest made by the person liable to pay the debt, or by his duly authorized agent, extends the period of limitation provided that an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the person making it. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 21 specifies that nothing in Section 20 renders one of several joint contractors, partners, executors, or mortgagees chargeable by a payment made by one of them or his agent. Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 21 further clarifies that where a liability is incurred by or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family, only the manager of the family or his duly authorized agent can make a payment that will extend the time against all the members of the family. The Court emphasized that after partition, there is no manager and therefore no one who can extend the period of limitation in respect of a family debt so as to affect the erstwhile members. Issue 3: Nature of Liability of a Hindu Son and Family Member The Court explored the nature of the liability of a Hindu son to pay his father's debts and a member of a joint family concerning a family debt. It was observed that the liability of a Hindu son to pay the debts of his father not being illegal or immoral arises from his pious obligation to save the father from sin, as laid down by the Hindu Law Texts. This liability is personal and does not arise out of a contract. The Court noted that each member of a joint family is similarly but separately liable, and this liability is limited to his individual share in the family properties, emphasizing the personal nature of the liability. Issue 4: Judicial Precedents The Court examined various judicial precedents to determine the liability of family members post-partition. In Pangudaya v. Uthandiya, it was held that even if the loan was contracted for the benefit of the family, the eldest brother could not keep the debt alive against his brothers by making payments after partition. Conversely, in Edangapurandar v. Narasimhachariar, it was held that the payment kept the note alive as against all the brothers under the pious obligation rule. The Court distinguished these cases and emphasized that the pious obligation rule creates a personal liability based on sonship, which does not extend to co-heirs or divided brothers. The Court also referred to Rama Vadhyar v. Manian Vadhyar, where it was held that after partition, there is no undivided family and therefore no managing member who can bind other members by acknowledgment or part-payment. In Lokanadha v. Lokhono, it was held that payment of interest by some descendants of a deceased mortgagor binds the other descendants even if they became divided before the payment was made. However, the Court noted that this does not imply that one member of a Hindu family can bind another post-partition. Conclusion: The Court concluded that Pangudaya v. Uthandiya was rightly decided and should be followed. The sons were not parties to the instrument, and their liability could only be extended by the managing member before partition. After partition, there was no managing member, and a part-payment by one member could not affect the others. The payment made by Srinivasachariar on the 10th June 1933, could only bind his brothers if he was acting as their authorized agent, which he was not. Therefore, the appeal was allowed with costs throughout.
|
