HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR HISSAR Vs. TELU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Telu Ram respondent was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Telu Ram Sham Sunder. There was Sales -Tax liability in the sum of Rs. 26, 271.41 against it. This amount was to be recovered under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987 and his house was attached. The sons of Telu Ram, i.e. respondents Nos. 2 to 6 filed a suit for declaration that Telu Ram had no interest in the house in dispute. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the family had 1/3rd interest in the house in dispute and out of this interest Telu Ram had 1/18th share only in the house in dispute which could be proceeded against. The appeal filed by the department was also dismissed. The State of Haryana has come up in second appeal before me.

(2.) The learned counsel for the State has vehemently contended that Telu Ram being the father of the said respondents and the other respondents being the members of the coparcenary, the latter were under a pious obligation to pay the debts of their father.

(3.) The learned counsel has cited J. Devaraja Rao and others v. Income Tax Officer, Anantapur and another, A.I.R 1970 Andhra Pradesh 426, and M.R. Dadhadrishnan and another v. The Union of India, 1959 AIR(Mad) 71, for the proposition that the tax liability constitutes a Vyavharik debt. He has also relied upon Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhupneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and others, 1953 AIR(SC) 487, for the proposition that undivided property belonging to the coparcenary can be proceeded against for releasing the debt incurred by the father. I might, however, add that in the last mentioned case the Supreme Court definitely referred to the doctrine of pious obligation of sons to meet the liability of their father. However, in the instant case I am concerned with proviso (2) to section 77 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which reads as under :-