MUSSAMUT NANOMI BABUASIN Vs. MODUN MOHUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of the cases, frequently occurring of late years, which raise questions as to the circumstances under which ancestral estate of a family subject to the Mitakshara law becomes liable to answer the debts of the head of the family.

(2.) THIS family is one governed by the Mithila law, which on the point under consideration does not differ from the Mitakshara. Its head is one Girdhari Singh. He has a wife, the Appellant Nanomi Bahuasin, and two sons, the other two Appellants, who were born before the transactions which gave rise to this suit, and were minors when this suit was commenced. The family are, or were, possessed of valuable ancestral property in land.

(3.) ON the 9th of September, 1872, a portion of the family ancestral land was brought to sale by execution proceedings in satisfaction of the decree, and the Respondent Hirdey Narain became the purchaser. The property sold was described as "8 annas 111/4 gundahs out of the entire 16 annas, the right and interest of the judgment debtor in mouzah Rampore Bhathera." The fraction mentioned was the share of the whole of Girdhari's joint family, the remaining annas and gundahs belonging to some relatives who were separate in estate. A dispute arose as to the regularity of the sale, which led to further litigation; but in the result the sale was upheld and Hirdey Narain took possession, which he still retains.