9911796707
TMI Blog1902 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was insisted under Section 334 by the respondent on the ground that she had a right of residence during her lifetime, and that she could not, therefore, be ejected from the residential portion of the house. The District Judge upheld her contention holding that Naranappa's liability under the pro-note was incurred by him only as a surety for certain debts owing by certain relations of his to the appellant, and that it was, therefore, not incurred for the benefit of the family consisting only of Naranappa and his wife, the respondent. We are unable to follow the reasoning of the District Judge. The family consisted only of the husband and wife, and all debts which would bind the husband personally are necessarily binding upon the widow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of her deceased husband in the joint family property which has come by survivorship into the hands of the surviving co-parcener or co-parceners, and though such right does not in itself form a charge upon her husband's share or interest in the joint family property, yet, when it becomes necessary to enforce or preserve such right effectually, it could be made a specific charge on a reasonable portion of the joint family property, such portion of course not exceeding her husband's share or interest therein I.L.R. 12 M. 260. Such right may also in certain cases be enforced against the transferee of joint family property (vide Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act). In the 6 Madras Series case, the son after the death of the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the judgment-debt is a family debt, and I take it that the debt, though contracted only by the male co-parceners, was contracted by them, not for their exclusive benefit, but for the benefit generally of the joint family consisting of themselves and their mother. A sale for the payment of her own debt would bind her interest in the house whatever it might be, and the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1882 was one which executed the hypothecation of 1875, and which was passed against the representatives of the joint family. In these circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to set aside the sale unless she shows that the debt which has led to it is not binding upon her . He then distinguishes the case in 6 Madras Series, p. 130, on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the family. The italics in the above quotation are mine. In Dalsukhram Mahasukhram v. Lallubhai Motichand I.L.R. 7 B. 282 the father left not only a widow but a son who sold the house. It was held that the sale will be subject to the right of the widow to continue to reside therein, it being found that there were no proper reasons for the alienation by the son and that the purchaser bought the house admittedly with full knowledge that the widow was residing therein. In Bhikham Das v. Pura I.L.R. 2 A. 141 the owner o the dwelling house who mortgaged the same died leaving him surviving his wife and mother. In a suit brought against both of them after the death of the mortgagor, to enforce the mortgage, it was held that it could be enforced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
