BARAMDEO SINGH Vs. LAL BAHADUR SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act by the defendants to set aside a decree for a sum of money in a suit based upon a hand- note. The money was borrowed from the opposite party by a widow to enable her to pay arrears of rent and for her maintenance. The suit was brought after her death against the reversioners who had come into possession of her husband's estate. It is also alleged that another purpose for which money was required was the repair of a house; but this purpose is not mentioned in the hand-note and there is no definite finding in respect of it in the judgment of the lower Court.

(2.) It is stated in the order that the debt will be payable out of the assets which the applicants received on the widow's death. The main ground of the application is that as the creditor had accepted the personal liability of the widow he is not entitled to proceed against the estate even if, as has been found, the money was borrowed for legal necessity. In the case of Gadgeppa Desai V/s. Apaji Jivanrao (1878) 3 Bom 237 it was held by the Bombay High Court that the reversioners were under no legal obligation to repay a loan taken in similar circumstances although it was for the benefit of the estate.

(3.) In Sakrabhai Nathubhai V/s. Maganlal Mulch and (1902) 26 Bom 206 a Full Bench of the same High Court decided that trade debts probably incurred by a Hindu widow on the credit of the business to which she succeeded as heiress of her deceased husband are recoverable after her death from the assets of the business as against the reversioners who have succeeded thereto even in the absence of a specific charge on the estate; but it was held in Bhagwatrao Abaji v. Ramnath Kaniram AIR 1928 Bom 310 that this decision did not overrule the decision in Sakrabhai Nathubhai V/s. Maganlal Mulchand (1902) 26 Bom 206 because it concerned trade debts and not debts incurred in the course of the management of the estate for which it was held again the estate was not ipsofacto liable.