RAMACHANDRA UPADYA Vs. SRINIVASA TANTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for determination is, whether, in a joint family, when the share of one brother is sold in execution, another brother can deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a person holding an interest in the property sold. It is held in Rottala Runganadhan Chetty V/s. Pulicat Ramasami Chetty (1903) ILR 27 M 162 that every member of an undivided family has an interest in joint family property, that is to say, not the share of each, but the whole corpus of the property. THEn if such member prefers to pay another member's debts rather than see the ancestral property pass to strangers (a transaction which may easily involve the family in discredit and inconvenience) there is no objection to his doing so. THE petition is allowed with costs throughout; if petitioner pays the deposit within two weeks of receipt of this order, it may be accepted.