SHRAWAN WARLYADAS KOSHTI Vs. JANGALYA LALDAS KOSHTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in this Court obtained a decree against Warlyadas. Warlyadas was a member of a joint family consisting of his father, himself, and his two sons. After the decree Warlyadas died, and on the following day his father died. Warlyadas's sons have been brought on the record as his legal representatives and the family house has been attached. The learned District Judge held that the entire house is attachable in execution of the decree against Warlyadas, arid against that decision this appeal has been preferred by the sons of Warlyadas. In the lower appellate Court it was conceded that a half share in the house was liable to attachment but it was contended that the other half representing the interest of Warlyadas's father could not be attached. In Devi Das v. Jada Ram A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 857, where the facts were similar, it was contended that no share in the family property could be attached, but that contention was not accepted: it was not suggested that the grandfather's share at least was exempt from attachment. Under Section 53, Civil P.C., property in the hands of a son which is liable under Hindu law for the payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor, in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be property of the deceased which has come to the hands of the son as his legal representative. I respectfully agree with the view expressed by Sulaiman C.J. in Chhotey Lal v. Ganpat Rai that Section 53, Civil P.C., was not intended to diminish the ordinary liability of a Hindu son under the Hindu law as it existed before the enactment of that section. The question therefore is the extent to which a son is liable for the debts of his father under Hindu law, it being assumed that the debts are not tainted with immorality: