VENKATARAMANAYA PANTULU Vs. VENKATARAMANA DOSS PANTULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this case is - Is a sale or a mortgage by a father of joint family property binding upon a son's share if there is no antecedent debt due by the father, i.e., no debt prior to the mortgage or sale.

(2.) In Sami Ayyangar V/s. Ponnammal I.L.R. 21 Mad. 28, it was held that in order to justify a sale or a mortgage by a father so as to bind his son's share of the property, there must be in fact an antecedent debt. In the judgment in that case it was pointed out that, as regards the liability of the son's share for the debt of the father as a mere money claim, there could be no question in a case where the mortgage was for consideration and was not illegal or immoral; but it was held, following the rule which had been previously acted upon by this Court, that the son's share was not bound by the sale or mortgage unless there was an antecedent debt.

(3.) In Chidambara Mudaliar V/s. Koothaperumal I.L.R. 27 Mad. 326, it was held that as regards the effect on the son's share there was no distinction in principle between a mortgage given for an antecedent debt and a mortgage given for a debt then incurred. That case was a case of mortgage and not of sale, but the language of the judgment indicates that the Court was of opinion that in the case of sales and mortgages alike the same principle was applicable.