BHAGWANTRAO ABAJI MARATHE Vs. RAMANATH KANIRAM SHET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question of law whether property in the hands of a Hindu reversioner is liable to satisfy a personal debt not secured on such property which a widow while 1928 enjoying a widow's estate has properly incurred in the course of management of the property. Both the lower Courts have held BAO that it is so liable.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 sued the appellant as reversionary heir and the 2nd respondent on a money bond for Rs. 600 dated June 13, 1921, executed jointly in her life-time by one Manubai and the 2nd respondent who was her brother. The bond carried interest at twelve per cent which rate was to be increased to eighteen per cent if the debt was not paid within a specified period. The bond did not recite that the widow was borrowing the money for a legal necessity or in course of conducting a trade or business of her deceased husband. It was proved by evidence that out of the moneys she borrowed Manubai had spent Rs. 425 for the benefit of the estate. From that the trial Judge in the absence of evidence to the contrary inferred that the whole amount was so spent. The appellate Court has confirmed that finding. At the date of the bond the widow was in possession and management of fifty bighas of land yielding an income of Rs. 700 to 800 per annum. The major part of the moneys borrowed was expended in payment of assessment and of servants wages and in the purchase of certain bullocks all connected with the land.

(3.) On the death of Manubai the land passed on to the appellant as the reversionary heir of her husband. The widow's estate she enjoyed in the land terminated with her death. The land cannot be said to form part of any estate she may have left. There is no encumbrance created by her on the laud. Prima facie therefore the ruling of this Court in Gadgeppa Desai V/s. Apaji Jivanrao (1879) I.L.R. 3 Bom. 237 would apply and the land in the hands of the reversioner would not be liable for a debt which is not secured on it. To the same effect is the ruling in Ramasami Mudaliar V/s. Sellattammal (1882) I.L.R. 4 Mad. 375. The lower appellate Court holds that these rulings have since been practically overruled in this Court by the Full Bench case of Sakrabhai V/s. Maganlal (1901) I.L.R. 26. Bom. 206, s.c. 3 Bom. L.R. 378, F.B. and in Madras by Regella Jogayga V/s. Nimushakavi Venkataratnamma (1910) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 492. The effect of these later rulings according to the learned Judge h that where a widow incurs a debt for the purpose of carrying on her husband's avocation and could have validly created a charge on the estate in respect of it, the debt after the widow's death would equally bind the estate in the hands of the reversioner although there may be no specific charge created on it. The proposition laid down by the learned Judge appears to me to be too wide and 192S is not justified by the rulings to which he has referred.