RAMESHAR NATH Vs. KEDAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 16-12-1944, of the learned District Judge, Hardoi, dismissing certain objections to the sale of some property of an insolvent.

(2.) It appears that one Bhurey Lal, who apparently constituted a joint Hindu family with his three sons, the present appellant, was declared insolvent on the petition of a creditor on 23-10-1937. The receiver purporting to seize the assets of the insolvent, sought the permission of the Court to sell certain property of the insolvent. Among others it included (1) landed property to the extent of 2 biswas, 10 biswansis, 7 kachwansis of village Fatehpur, Sheo Ghulam, patti Nokhey Lal, (2) miscellaneous trees in the above village, (3) two she-buffaloes, two bullocks and five goats, and (4) sugar-cane plantation. The three sons, who are now the appellants, objected to the sale of this property on the ground that it was their self-acquired property and could not be sold in satisfaction of the debts of their father. The learned District Judge held that although the property was given to the insolvent Bhurey Lal and his sons under an arbitration award, yet the property in the hands of Nokhey Lal, father of Bhurey Lal, was ancestral property and in these circumstances, when it is not shown that the debts of the father are tainted with immorality; or were incurred for illegal purposes, the whole property is liable to be sold to pay the debts of Bhurey Lal. The same view was held in respect of the miscellaneous trees in village Fatehpur. As regards the other two items, the cattle and sugarcane plantation, the learned Court held that there was no evidence to hold that it was the self-acquired property of the objectors. In the result their objection was dismissed.

(3.) It has been urged on behalf of the objectors that there is in fact no evidence whatever to show that the property, under the award, was in fact ancestral property in the hands of Nokhey Lal, and in these circumstances the acquisition of the property under the award made the property the self-acquired property of Bhurey Lal and his three sons and that in any case the share of the three sons could not be sold in satisfaction of the debts due from their father. There is considerable force in this contention. The arbitration award nowhere mentions that the property was the property which came into the hands of Nokhey Lal from his ancestors. There is no other evidence on the record. In these circumstances it is impossible to hold that the property mentioned in the award was ancestral property, so far as Bhurey Lal and his three sons are concerned. As it has been distributed between Bhurey Lal and his three sons under the award, it is clear that the property comes into the hands of the present objectors not by way of inheritance but under the award. In these circumstances the property is the self-acquired property of the objectors and cannot be sold in satisfaction of the debts of their father. It is, therefore, clear that three-fourths of the property which came jointly to Bhurey Lal insolvent and his three sons, the appellants, and the miscellaneous trees appertaining to that share are not liable to be sold in satisfaction of the debts of Bhurey Lal.