9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief. The question referred arises in the Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for set- ting aside a sale deed executed by their father and elder brother in favour of the first defendant on 2-4-1955. The executants are dead. The plaintiffs sued for partition of 6/8 shares in the properties and also sought setting aside of the sale deed on the ground that it was not supported by consideration and necessity and the debts recited in the deed were not antecedent debts of the father. One of the debts so recited was the obligation to pay future subscriptions by a prized subscriber who had received the prize money and had executed a chitty security bond. Whether the amount of the future instalments could be said to constitute a debt before the instalments had fallen due is the controversy in the Second Appeal. The decision on the question whether the debt in controversy is an antecedent debt or not will go a long way in resolving the question whether the major portion of the debts could be said to be antecedent debt so as to sustain the document. 3. When a prized subscriber in a chitty receives the prize money and executes a security bond to secure the payment of future sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a form of rural banking. By subscribing in kuries from out of savings one could expect to get a substantial sum in a lump while prizing the kuri at a time of need. Chitties came to be statutorily regulated for the first time in Travancore by the Travancore Chitties Regulation 1094 passed on 8th December, 1918. That was amended from time to time and ultimately it was repealed, to be replaced by Travancore Chitties Act 26 of 1120. In the erstwhile Cochin State Cochin Kuries Act 7 of 1107 and the Cochin Starting of Kuries (Restriction) Act were enacted. The Travancore Act and the Cochin Acts were repealed by the Kerala Chitties Act 23 of 1975 which replaced the abovesaid Act with effect from 25-8-1975. 5. The Acts regulating Chitties were intended to define and limit the rights and obligations of the Chitty foreman as well as the subscribers, since collapse of chitties on a large scale would have adverse impact upon the economy and in particular the rural economy of the State. The obligation of the chitty foreman to each one of the subscribers and the subscribers inter se were governed only by the terms of the contract. The chitty foreman would collect the subscriptions from the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tution and the solvency of the foreman being a matter of concern for the subscribers to the chitty and further the due conduct of the chitty being necessary to protect the interest of the subscribers who join the chitty the courts envisaged certain concepts in order to secure the rights of those to whom money was due from the foreman in respect of the chitty. Therefore even while resiling, later, from the theory of partnership and trusteeship, though not expressly, courts recognised some sort of right in the non prized subscriber in the future subscriptions due from prized subscribers to the foreman so as to limit the power of alienation by the foreman of the right to collect future subscriptions. Thus the approach of courts to the question from time to time was not strictly based on any legal obligation that could be read from contract, statute or custom but on what was required by the exigencies of the situation. The early cases of the Travancore High Court may. in this context, be referred to as they illustrate the point. 7. One of the earliest cases to which reference may be made in this context is the decision of a Bench of 5 Judges of Travancore High Court in Mariandran Thom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om that of ordinary partners. His position towards the unprized subscribers is analogous to that of a debtor, and towards the prized subscribers, who have received the collections, to that of a creditor." The examination of this question was with a view to ascertain whether a chitty foreman had a power of alienation and the court was of the view that he did not have absolute power of alienation over the chitty funds, funds on which according to the court, unprized subscribers held a lien. While observing that prized subscribers from whom money was due to the foreman were in the position of ordinary debtors, non-prized subscribers were found to have a lien upon the amount due from prized subscribers on account of future instalments to the extent of their claim against the foreman. Thus while the theory of partnership was not promoted the court read a lien though not based on any terms of the contract between the parties. Ormsby J. who concurred with the judgment of the Chief Justice and the two other Judges made a further observation thus: "In the absence of legislation, I can only hope that parties to chitty transactions (which are. I believe, most numerous) will themse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and manager of the fund, yet those words were used not in their strict sense but in a loose fashion by way of analogy, By the use of the word proprietor, it was not meant that foreman was the absolute owner of the concern. It cannot for a single moment be contended that the concern is a partnership or. strictly speaking, one even analogous to it, since mutual agency, which is the test of partnership, is wholly wanting in these mutual benefit funds." He expressed the view that there can be no doubt that each subscriber enters into a contract as it were with the foreman and looks to him for getting the amount due to him. 9. Now we will refer to a decision of the Division Bench of Travancore High Court. Narayanan v. So aria (34 TLR 167) a derision rendered in 1093 sometime prior to the Chitties Act. In a suit to recover defaulted subscriptions by the assignee of a chitty security bond executed in favour of the foreman by the defendants on the occasion of receiving the prize amount defendants contended that the assignment was invalid since it was made after the collapse of the chitty and that without the consent of the non-prized subscribers. The decisions in Mariandran Thommann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eman to claim consolidated payment of all the future subscriptions from a defaulting prized subscriber and it was not to be unless demand was made for the same in writing. The controversy as to whether it was open to a foreman to transfer the right to the unpaid subscriptions by a prized subscriber was statutorily settled by incorporating Section 28 which read:-- "28 (1) Any voluntary or Involuntary transfer of the rights of a foreman to receive subscriptions from prized subscribers shall, if it defeats or delays a non-prized or unpaid prized subscriber, be voidable at the instance f such subscriber. (2) When under Sub-section (i) of this section a transfer is disputed by a subscriber, the burden of proving that the transfer does not defeat or delay such subscriber is upon the transferee." Thus after this Act the rights of the parties to a chitty transaction were taken to have been defined by the provisions of statute The obligations between the parties arise from contract which contract itself is subject to the statutory limitations and regulations. The protection that was sought to be given to non-prized subscribers prior to the commencement of the Act by assuming tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was after the relevant date. The cage of the chitty subscriber was that it was incurred when the security bond was executed and that being prior to 23-5-1112 the benefit of the Act would be available. The question the Full Bench had therefore to decide was whether the debt in that case was incurred prior to 23-5-1112 or thereafter. If the debt was incurred not on the execution of the security bond, but either on the demand of the whole debt in a lump on default of the first instalment the debt would be outside the scope of the Act. The scheme of the Chitties Act was examined by the Court in that case in paragraph 5 of the judgment it would be profitable to extract the following passage from paragraph 5 of that judgment; "The exact jural relationship created by a Chitty was the subject-matter of consideration in numerous early decisions of this court. In some cases, the relationship was called a partnership. In other cases, it was stated that the foreman occupied the position of a trustee. In still other cases, it was held that the legal relationship between a prized subscriber and the foreman was that which subsists between a creditor and a debtor. It was however realised tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper to say that it is the payment of the prize amount which creates the liability in the prized subscriber to pay the future subscriptions. The payment of the prize amount has therefore nothing to do with that liability." That the execution of the security bond was not for the return of the prize amount, but was for securing the payment of future subscriptions was emphasised in paragraph 7 of the judgment. The Court said ;-- "7. When a prized subscriber executes a security bond at the time when he receives the prize amount, the security bond is given, not for the prize amount which he has received but for the payment of future subscriptions on the due dates, in other words, the security is furnished, not for ensuring the return of the prize amount but for the payment of future subscriptions, the amount of which will in most cases never correspond with the prize amount. Hence it is impossible to accept the position that the receipt of the prize amount by a subscriber makes him a borrower of this sum for the foreman with the liability arising co instanti to return that amount in instalments. It is here that the analogy of an instalment bond does not hold good. In the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a person promises to pay not to meet a debt already in existence he is obliged to pay only by reason of his undertaking, if the agreement is supported by consideration, His obligation is discharged by the payment on the date specified. If he fails to pay in terms of his obligation he is a defaulter and then arises a debt due from him to the promisee. He incurs a debt only then. It will of course be different in a case where the promise to pay at a future date is of an existing debt in which case it is not that he incurs a liability on the date of default, hut the liability is already there. It becomes payable on a future date. It cannot be said that for that reason it is incurred on a future date. This distinction has evidently not been noticed. 13. We will now refer to an illuminating passage in the judgment of T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar. Chief Justice of the High Court of Travancore in a case where a karanavathi of a tarwad along with the other members of the tarwad were sued on a chitty security bond executed by the Karnavathi on prizing a chitty and receiving the prize amount. The question raised in that case was whether the chitty security bond on which the suit was based was ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion in that judgment. A later Division Bench of this Court in which one of us the Acting Chief Justice, spoke for the Bench considered a similar question and in paragraph 10 of that judgment in Narayana Prabhu v. Janardhana Mallan (AIR 1974 Ker 1081 this Court said:-- "10. In this context the normal incidents of a kuri have to be noticed. The chitly foreman and the subscribers enter into a contract whereby the subscribers oblige themselves to pay subscriptions in stated instalments and the foreman obliges himself to pay the prized amount when once the chitty is prized by the subscriber at any instalment, This obligation of the subscriber arises from the stipulations in the contract. Even when he is a prized subscriber he has the same obligation to pay future subscriptions arising not by reason of the fact that he has prized the kuri but because of the contract entered into by him with the foreman to pay such subscriptions whether the kuri is prized or not if he bids the kuri at any instalment and demands the prize money the obligation of the foreman to pay the same also arises under the contract. Future subscriptions paid by the prized subscribers are not in discharge of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would amount to a penalty. This was the view expressed by the Full Bench. It then examined the question whether payment had fallen due or in other words a debt had arisen on receiving the prize money and executing the chitty security bond in favour of the foreman. The Full Bench found that a debt had so arisen and if so acceleration of the dates Of instalment payment would not render the provision thereof penal in character. Reference was made by the Full Bench to John Wallingford v. The Directors and Company of the Mutual Society and the Official Liquidator thereof (1880) 5 AC 685 which was referred to as the leading English Case on the subject. The following passage in that judgment was quoted by the Full Bench (at p. 50) :-- "The real matter seems to stand thus. These mortgage bonds were given to secure the 6000, which sum was treated as advanced, although money did not pass and also the premiums, which would become due by instalments according to the rules of the society; and the payment of which under those rules was liable to be accelerated, if any of the instalments were not punctually paid. I cannot think that such an acceleration of payments has anything in common wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at extent the getting of interest alone as distinguished from the principal is made to depend on chance. Further the benefit of the loan is given to all alike". 16. What has essentially to be noticed here is that the reliance on the theory of a mutual fund or a common fund would not be justified as it was not founded on any sound legal principle and was conceived at a time when there was no statutory regulation of chitties. What we have explained earlier in this judgment would be sufficient to indicate that whatever might have been the earlier view as to the incidents of a chitty the rights and liabilities of the parties stand crystallised by the statutory regulations made as early as in 1094 in Travancore Area and 1107 in Cochin Area. 17. The Full Bench also adverted to the decision of a Division Bench in Commr. of Income-tax v. Kottayam Cooperative Bank Ltd.. (1974 Ker LT 510) : (1975 Tax LR 175) constituted by two of the learned Judges who sat in the Full Bench. S. 80P (2) (a) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provided for certain deduction in respect of income of Co-operative Societies of certain amounts and that was in the case of co-operative societies carrying on the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore there was no occasion for the Full Bench to examine the logic or the reasonableness of the approach made in those cases. 20. Now we will advert to the consideration of this question by the Cochin High Court and also by the Madras High Court. The decisions of the Madras High Court have been adverted to by the Full Bench and it may be profitable t advert to them and to examine how far the logic of those decisions should persuade this Court to fall in line with the view expressed therein. Before that we think it would be appropriate once again to highlight the controversy before us on the question referred. As noticed by the eminent Judge T. M. Krishnaswami Iyer C. J. in Devaki Amma's case (1943 TLR 902) an obligation to pay future subscription in chitty undertaken under the original contract continues to be the same whether the prize is drawn or not or the prize amount is received or not. For the purpose of solvency of the chitty certain provisions are incorporated in the statute as additional obligations of the subscribers. But for such obligations there will be no difference between the liability of the prized subscriber and the non-prized subscriber and both arise out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecure the earlier obligation. We are not referring to the provisions of the repealed enactments only because the position is not materially different thereunder. We therefore find that there is a promise to pay in future and the obligation arises by reason of such promise. 21. An obligation is a legal tie and gives rise to a legal relationship. When an obligation arises out of a contract its nature depends on the terms of the contract. When the obligation concerns payment of money that may mature into a debt when such debt is incurred, All such obligations need not be debts though they may result in the incurring of debts depending on the terms of the contract. Till such debts are incurred the relationship of the parties bound by the legal tie or obligation arising under the contract would not be that of debtor and creditor. That status would arise only on the debt coming into existence which, as we pointed out, need not be simultaneous with the emergence of the obligation between the parties under the terms of the contract. 22. When under the terms of a contract there is a provision to pay on a future date not in repayment of an existing debt but by way of discharge of the oblig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a subscriber is purely one of contract." It may be useful to refer to the following passage at page 397 : "The subscribers have no right, in the absence of any special stipulation to that effect, to compel the starter to keep the kuri collections as a separate fund out of which the prize-money should be paid. The remedy of a subscriber who wins or auctions his ticket is only to proceed, if necessary, personally against the starter, just like any other simple creditor of his or against properties, if any, secured for the due conduct of the kuri. The starter also will not be heard, when the prize-money is demanded, to say that there was no sufficient collection owing to the default, wilful or otherwise, on the part of the subscribers... .........The true position, in my opinion, is shortly this, viz., that, in the absence of special terms to the contrary, the relationship between the starter and a subscriber is purely one of ordinary contract, that there is no sort of fiduciary relationship between them and that a subscriber does not also get any lien or control over subscriptions collected by the starter." After referring to the various decisions of the Cochin Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tarter as subscriber's money only, subject to the terms and conditions of the Kurivari." Sahasranama Iyer J. concurring with this expressed the view thus at page 106 thus:-- "The starter incurs the correlative obligation to pay the bid or prize money, and may, if he so chooses, as a condition of such payment, insist upon reasonable security being furnished by the subscriber for the due performance of his obligation to pay the future subscriptions. That being so when the starter makes good the bid or prize money to the subscriber, and the latter executes a security bond ensuring regular payment by him of the future subscriptions there is no lending or borrowing involved in the transaction. The idea of a loan properly so called has no place therein." The view, we must notice, is expressed in categorical terms. There is an exhaustive reference again to this question in a Full Bench decision in Ananthapadmanabha Ayyar v. Kallianikutti Amma (28 CLR 6521: (1935) 25 CLR 101 was affirmed by the Full Bench in that case. Before a Division Bench of the Cochin High Court the question arose whether a debt fell within the scope of Cochin Agricultural Relief Act 18 of 1114. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngement by which the loan had been obtained was illegal as being a lottery within the meaning of Act 5 of 1844. Whether there was speculation, risk and gaming in such an arrangement was the question that the court had to decide and taking note of the transaction the court expressed its opinion that the transaction was not necessarily a lottery merely because the prizing was to be by taking lots. The question referred to the High Court itself referred to the bond as one given for "a loan from a common fund." There was no occasion for the court to examine this. The court evidently assumed that the amount was simply a loan from the common fund to each subscriber in turn. It is not as if this question was considered by the Madras High Court in that case. But that decision is of significance, for, it appears to have been assumed that in a chitty there is a common fund contributed by the subscribers from which each one of them in turn takes loans. This is relevant and important because the later decisions of the High Court of Madras are not based so much on logic as on the rule of stare decisis. Therefore the decisions of the Madras High Court have necessarily to be viewed in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liability under the security bond which they have executed for the due payment of such instalments are 'debitum in praesenti solvendum in futuro' incurred on the respective date of the bonds. After noticing these respective contentions Palanjali Sastri J. proceeded to state thus:-- "The question is one of some difficulty not the least part of which arises from 'he somewhat conflicting decisions dealing with these peculiar kuri transactions which are so common in some parts of this presidency. On the whole however we are of opinion that the judgment-debtors contention is supported by a preponderance of authority and must be accepted. It will be observed that the kuri vari makes a distinction between the liability of a subscriber who has bid for and received the amount at an auction and the liability of one who has not vet been thus benefited. In the latter case para. 5 provides that if the instalment is not paid on the date fixed for an auction, the subscriber will have no right to participate in the discount realised from the successful bidder at the auction and further, if it, remains unpaid even after one month from the date of the auction, the stake-holder sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntract entered into ^v such a subscriber is t0 lend money to the foreman and therefore such a contract would of be enforceable. Dealing with this the learned Judge said thus:-- "I do not agree as I quite fail to see how it can possible be said that this is in any sense a contract entered into by a subscriber to lend money to the stakeholder. It seems to me to be more in the nature of a contact on the part of the subscriber to pay a certain sum of merely to the stakeholder under the rules of the chit fund and when he has broken his contract there is nothing at all to prevail the stake-holder from suing him for the money which he has contracted to pay." 28. In Maruda Konar v. Veerammal, AIR 1938 Mad 985 the Question was whether an assignee of the rights of a foreman in regard to the right to collect future subscription from a prized subscriber could sue notwithstanding the fact that the chitty was not conducted till its due termination. It was contended that when the chitty collapsed the obligation of the subscribers to pay also came to an end. In this context Varadachariar J. speaking for the Bench said thus: -- "It seems to me only reasonable to hold that in cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such amount there is a debtor-creditor relationship. As we have stated earlier in this judgment the chitty variola only embodies a promise to pay cm future dates. That is not a promise to repay an existing debt, but to pay in discharge of a contractual obligation. For similar reasons neither the prizing of the chitty nor the execution of the security bond would give rise to a debt, for the prize amount is not received as a loan, but as of right by virtue of the terms of the contract between the parties. We reiterate that the provisions of the relevant Acts relating to chitties to which we have made advertence also only indicate this. In this view we are of the opinion that to the extent the earlier decision of the Full Bench in Achutham's case. 1974 Ker LT 806 : (AIR. 1975 Ker 47) has referred to the creation of the debtor-creditor relationship on the prizing of the chitty and the execution of the security bond we respectfully differ. The decision of the Division Bench in 1976 KLT 205 : (AIR 1977 Ker 87 which follows the Full Bench decision must also therefore be found to have not rightly stated the law. We therefore answer the question referred to us in the negative, namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of family necessity, extent to which the document was supported by consideration and such other matters as are normally to be dealt with by the court in a suit of this nature. No doubt in the elaborate discussion the court has made various observations and expressed its views. The result of its discussions is that it find that the document of sale is executed for discharge of antecedent debts to the extent of ₹ 5,750/ and that the document meant is therefore valid. The appellate court concurred with this, though it would appear that on the question of family necessity it purported to differ from the trial court. I say it purported for it is not possible to categorically state that it has entered a finding on this question, I will advert to that a due course. The court, having found that the document was supported by antecedent debts to the extent of ₹ 5,750/-, held that the sale was not liable to be ignored or set aside. The plaintiffs were non-suited. Accordingly they are before this Court now. 33. Though several questions were raised in the memorandum of appeal, at the time of admission of the appeal the learned Judge who admitted the appeal limited notice on que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aising the first question in the appeal. That is a question which it was not easy to resolve particularly because different views had been taken by this court on the question whether a liability that may arise on account of execution of a chitty security bond for prize money received in a chitty is a debt. Since the correctness of the Full Bench decision of this Court in P.K. Achuthan v. State Bank of Travancore (1974 Ker LT 806) : (AIR 1975 Ker 47) was doubted the question was referred to a Bench of five Judges and that question has now been answered. The view taken by the Full Bench in Achuthan's case has not been accepted by the Full Bench in answering the question referred. The answer to the question as given by the Larger Bench of this Court reads thus: "We therefore answer the question referred to us in the negative, namely,that no debt due to the foreman arises by reason of the receipt of the prize amount or of the execution of the security bond for securing future subscribtions." A copy of the order of the Larger Bench is appended to this judgment. 35. It therefore follows that the sum of ₹ 1,250/- represented by the chitty security bond is the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a debt in addition to ₹ 4,500/-found cannot be sustained. 37. Now I will deal with the larger question concerning the right of a Hindu father to alienate ancestral property in which the sons have interest so as to bind the sons' interest also. A distinction has necessarily to be noticed between the right of the manager of a Hindu joint family to alienate ancestral property and that of a father to alienate ancestral property so as to bind the share of his sons. The law has been succinctly stated in Hunoomanpersaud's case (1856) 6 Moo Ind APP 393. The Hindu law envisages an obligation in the son to discharge the debts of his father irrespective of whether such debts were incurred for family necessity or not. That obligation of the sons would not extend to their person but to their interest in ancestral property. The only exception would be an avyavaharika debt incurred by the father for illegal or immoral purposes. Where the father seeks to discharge his debts, not necessarily incurred for the benefit of the family, from out of the interests of the sons in joint family property the sons will have no defence, for it is their legal obligation to submit to such liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I may refer in this context to the decision of the Privy Council in Sri Krishn Das v. Nathu Ram (AIR 1927 PC 37). Referring to the decision in Girdharee Lal v. Kanta Lall (1874) 1 Ind APP 321 the learned Judges observed thus;-- "Before a father has sold ancestral property for the discharge of his debts, if the application of the bulk of the proceeds is accounted for the fact that .a small part is not accounted for will not invalidate the sale." On this the Privy Council comments thus :-- "While this is in itself a, correct statement of the law so far as it goes, it does not bar any means follow as the learned High Court Judges seem to have thought that it is a complete statement of the law or that the sale will be invalidated wherever the part of the consideration not accounted for cannot be described as small. If this were sound the question would in each ease be a matter of arithmetical calculation, and opinions would necessarily vary as to what constituted the "bulk of the proceeds" or "a small part" of the same in each particular case. The learned Judges seem to have lost sight of the true question which falls to be answered in such cases, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purchase money having beer paid to creditors would not invalidate his conveyance, he not being bound to see to the application of his money." It is interesting to notice the case law which the privy Council considered later in that judgment. The case in Medai Daeavoi v. Nainar Tevan. AIR 1922 PC 307 to which advertance was made was one where a widow alienated a property in which she had widow's estate, for a sum of ₹ 5,300/- to satisfy a mortgage decree for ₹ 4,588.22 appropriating the balance to herself though that was not shown to be for any legal necessity. Reference was also made to the decision in Dwarka Ram v. Jhulai Pande. AIR 1923 All 248, in Daulat v. Sankatha Prasad. AIR 1925 All 324 (21 and Masit Ullah v. Damudar Prasad, ATR 1926 PC 105. In Daulat v. Sankatha Prasad. AIR 1925 All 324 (21 a sum of ₹ 105/- out of the total consideration of ₹ 2,142-12-6 alone was not shown to be covered by legal necessity. The sale was sustained. In the last of the cases cited. Masit Ullah v. Damudar Prasad, AIR 1926 PC 105 out or the total consideration of ₹ 18,400/-, a sum of ₹ 2,000/- was not shown to be applied for the discharge of anteced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vendor is contrary to the finding of the trial court which on el a borate discussion found that no enquiry was made by the vendor. 44. Normally a court hearing a Second Appeal is limited to the consideration of the question formulated at the time of admission of the appeal. That would be the scope of the Second Appeal. But this does not preclude a Court in the interests of justice, from departing from this and allowing the parties to plead other questions in Second Appeal. In this case the real controversy between the parties cannot be said to be highlighted by the two questions on which notice was issued. It is not as if my finding that the sale deed cannot be supported on the ground that it is for discharge of antecedent debt would conclude the late of this case. The question whether nevertheless the sale deed should be upheld as one executed for discharge of family necessity must necessarily engage this Court's attention. Perhaps if the question had been viewed in the proper perspective and dealt with by the Court below we would have been governed by the finding of the Court on the facts. But as I have said earlier there was absolutely no categorical finding either by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
