MUSAMMAT RAMESHRA Vs. KALPO RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER shearing arguments in the case and considering the recently pronounced decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Brij Narain Rai v. Mangla Prasad Rai 77 Ind. Cas. 479 : 31 A. 176 : 6 A.L.J. 934 : 46 M.L.J. 23 : 5 P.L.T. 1 : 28 C.W.N. 253 : (1924) M.W.N. 68 : 19 L.W. 72 : 2 P.L.R. 41 : 10 O. and A.L.R. 82 : (1924) A.I.R. (P.C.) 50 : 33 M.L.T. 457 : 46 A. 95 : 26 Bom. L.R. 500 : 11 O.L.J. 107 (P.C.) Privy Council Appeal No. 51 of 1922, Allahabad Appeal No. 4 of 1920, decided on 14 November 1923] we are of opinion that this case was rightly decided by the learned Judge of this Court. There is nothing in the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case above quoted to warrant the view that an uncle acting as Manager of a joint family is entitled to sell the share of his nephew in the joint family property in order to discharge a debt incurred by his own father, even though the said father be also the grandfather of the nephew whose property is alienated. On this ground we dismiss the appeal with costs.