9911796707
TMI Blog1941 (9) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssity. On the 25th March, 1925, the father died. Payments towards interest were made subsequently by Srinivasachariar on behalf of himself and his brothers. On the 13th June, 1930, the brothers separated. It was then agreed between them that Srinivasachariar should be responsible for the repayment of the debt due on this promissory note. In deciding what properties should be taken by Srinivasachariar as his share due allowance was made for his obligation to discharge the debt. On the 10th June, 1933, Srinivasachariar paid a sum of ₹ 55 on account of interest due on the promissory note and made an endorsement on it recording the fact that he had made the payment. On the 24th July, 1935, the first respondent, who has died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by the second respondent, instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Shiyali the present suit to recover the balance due on the promissory note, it having been bequeathed to him by his mother in her will. All the sons of Thiruvenkatachariar were made defendants. The District Munsif held that the payment made by Srinivasachariar operated to extend the period of limitation against his brothers as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s could not, of course, affect the rights of the holder of the promissory note, but it makes it impossible to contend that Srinivasachariar was acting as the agent of his brothers when he paid the ₹ 55. Srinivasachariar was never the manager of the family, although until the partition took place it would be legitimate to regard interest payments made by him as having been made under the authority of his eldest brother on whom devolved the managership of the family on the death of the father. The provision of law embodied in Section 21 (3) (b) of the Limitation Act is an important factor in this case. While the family remains united only the manager or his duly authorized agent can extend the period of limitation against the family. 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. 5. Before proceeding to examine the reported decisions of this Court which have bearing on the question to be decided it will be useful to inquire into the nature of the liability of a Hindu son to pay his father's debts and of a member of a joint family in respect of a family deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e family properties emphasizes the personal nature of the liability. Therefore in deciding whether after partition one brother can extend the liability of his brothers in respect of a debt incurred by the family before partition, the law of joint liability as understood in England is of no help. Regard can only be had to Hindu conception of liability arising out of relationship. 6. Turning now to the reported decisions, the judgment on which the appellant most strongly relies is that delivered by Stodart, J., in Pangudaya v. Uthandiya AIR1938Mad774 , in which Madhavan Nair, J., concurred. There a joint Hindu family consisted of three brothers the eldest of whom as the manager of the family executed in 1919 a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In the following year the brothers separated. After the partition the eldest brother made four payments of interest the last of which was on the 5th March, 1930. All the payments were endorsed on the promissory note. The suit was filed in 1931. The Court held that even if the loan was contracted for the benefit of the family, the eldest brother could not after partition by making payments towards the loan and placing them on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payment is made after partition. The learned Chief Justice pointed out that after a partition there is no undivided family and therefore no managing member of it, and unless there is authority to acknowledge the debt or make a part-payment the other members of the family will not be bound by the acknowledgment or part-payment of one member alone. In Lokanadha v. Lokhono AIR1930Mad738 , Curgenven, J., also sitting alone, held that payment of interest made by some of the descendants of a deceased mortgagor binds the other descendants even though they became divided from the family before the payment was made. The learned Judge considered that Section 21 (2) could not save them because it did not relate to co-heirs and other persons who are liable by; reason of their personal law and not from direct contract with the promisee. This view of Section 21 (2) is obviously right, but it does not follow from this that after partition one member of a Hindu family can bind another member by what he does' alone. 9. The learned advocate for the respondent also referred to the decision of Varadachariar and Burn, JJ., in Lakshmi Naidu v. Gunnamma (1934) 68 M.L.J. 470 : I.L.R. Mad. 41 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
