SUNKAVADLI SUBBARAO Vs. VUPPALAPATI NARASIMHARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appeal from a decision of the Additional District Judge given on 21st August, 1961 whereby he set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit only for Rs. 350. The facts which gave rise to the suit may oe briefly stated. The plaintiff instituted O.S. N0. 152 of 1952 against the father of the defendants on the foot of promissory notes dated 20th April, 1949 and 14th Octomber, 1950 and obtained a decree against the father. When he put that decree in execution and attached some joint family property, the sons objected to the execution On the ground that there was a partition of the family property, and therefore the decree obtained against the father cannot he exerted against the property which had fallen to the shares of the Sons, that objection was upheld arid consequently the plaintiff- has brought the present suit against the sons on the ground that the defendants are liable to pay the decree debts due from the father under the theory of pious obligation.

(2.) The father, in the meanwhile, had filed an insolvency petition. An Official Receiver was appointed and an order of annulment was subsequently passed. The Official Receiver, calculating the property of the insolvent, declared the pre-rata distribution to which the creditors would be entitled to. As the plaintiff had not appeared before; the Insolvency Court, he did not get anything in that distribution.

(3.) The defendant opposed the claim mainly on the ground that after the father was declared insolvent and his liability reduced, the sons cannot be held liable to pay the decree debt. They farther contended that the rait was time barred and no such suit could He against the sons.