V. MURUGAN Vs. R. SANKAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants Nos. 5 and 3 in O.S. No. 840 of 1980, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, are the appellants in S.A. Nos. 1354 of 1983 and 24 of 1984 respectively. The parties herein will be referred to according to this rank in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff in the suit sought for partition claiming one fourth share in the plaint schedule property. It is said that the entire plaint property belonged to the grandfather the plaintiff and after his death, the said property devolved on the 1st defendant, father of the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 9. It is further alleged that the 1st defendant who is the father of the plaintiff does not care for the welfare of his children and his family. He has been leading a (sic) life and spending money on speculative business. He has spent time and money on wine and women. While so, the 1st defendant started a new business viz. a rice mill which is a highly speculative one. It was not a family business conducted by the grandfather or the ancestors of the 1st defendant and it is also said that the family of the plaintiff is not a trading family and there was no necessity to start a new business by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has executed mortgage in respect of plaint property and has borrowed amount. The mortgagees filed a suit for recovery of the amount and brought the property to sale and the same was purchased by the 3rd defendant. According to the plaintiff, the mortgages executed by his father are not binding on him or the defendants 6 to 9 or their mother. When the properties were brought to sale, his mother filed a claim petition and was dismissed. It is said that the transactions entered into by the 1st defendant are not apported by legal necessity, nor the debts were incurred for the benefit of the family and are therefore, not binding either on the plaintiff or on defendants 6 to 9. Ttherefore, the plaintiff seeks a decree for partition.

(3.) The 1st defendant remained ex parte. According to the 2nd defendant, the property absolutely belonged to the 1st defendant and it is for the purpose of business he had to incur debts. He is a man of repute and good character and with intent to bring up the family in exemplary manner and to the high standard of the Society, he has been doing business in rice mill and got enriched. He was also maintaining the family and the allegations against the 1st defendant are all intended only for the purpose of this case. He had to incur certain debts for the purpose of starting a rice mill and later he had executed a mortgage, evidencing those transactions. It is said that the plaintiff as well as the entire family properties are bound by the debts, and under the Hindu Law, son is also bound to discharge the father's debt. For the debts incurred by the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant brought the suit property for sale and in Court auction the property was sold in favour of 5th defendant. The present suit for partition is therefore, not maintainable.