JAGANNATHA AIYANGAR Vs. SUPPIAH CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree was obtained against defendants 1 to 5 personally on a promissory note executed by them for a debt binding on the family. Because it was binding on the family, the other two members, defendants 6 and 7, were made liable to the extent of their share of the family property. Defendants 3 to 7 filed an application in the Court below for scaling down the debt. The debt was scaled down in accordance with Section 8 of the Agriculturists Debt Relief Act (IV of 1938), and a question arose in view of the allegations that defendants 1 and 2 were not entitled to the benefit of the Act (defendant 1 being said to be an insolvent and defendant 2 to have no further interest in the family property) whether, under Section 14 of the Act, the creditor can proceed against each of the defendants only for his proportionate share of the debt. The lower Court held that Section 14 did not apply to the case of a contractual debt. Defendants 3 to 5 appeal.

(2.) Section 14 affects: A Hindu family...where some of the members liable in respect of a family debt are not agriculturists while others are agriculturists.

(3.) The case of the respondent, which has been accepted by the lower Court, is that this debt is not a family debt. It is argued that a debt can only be said to be a family debt when the debtors are made liable only because they are members of a family; for example, if the manager of a family contracts a debt legally binding on the family, it is a family debt as far as the other members of the family are concerned but not as far as the manager is concerned. It is difficult to appreciate this distinction; for it appears to me that if a debt is a family debt, it must be a family debt with regard to everybody. Moreover, I think, the wording of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 14 indicates that this contention of the respondent cannot be correct; because it makes liable not only the debtors shares of the family property but makes them liable personally for their proportionate share of debt; and they cannot be liable personally unless the debt is a contractual one. So I cannot agree with the lower Court that Section 14 has no application.