SINNAMMAL Vs. SETTIYA GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the decree-holder. On a promissory note purporting to be executed by a father and a son and a third party she obtained a decree against the father only, exonerating the other two. She now tries to execute the decree on property in the hands of the son and has been repulsed in both the Courts below.

(2.) It is the fact that at the time when the debt was contracted the father and son were undivided (15 July, 1931), but by the time of suit (28 October, 1933), they had become divided.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that on a decree obtained after partition against the father alone she ought to be able to proceed against property-in the hands of the son. That is against all the current of decisions in this Court. When the petitioner filed her suits she should have prayed for a decree against the son to the extent of the latter's interest in the family property and in the alternative in case the son had become divided to the extent of the family property which the son had got at partition and which he still retained. But petitioner got no decree against the son. Partition does not put an end to the son's liability for a father's debt; but it does put an end to the joint family as an entity which can possess joint property and be jointly sued. After partition therefore if the liability of the son is to be enforced it must be by a decree obtained against him.