DATTATRAYA LAXMAN Vs. YASHODABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a creditor's application to annul a transfer. The application purports to be under Sections 53 and 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, but actually the matter decided falls under Section 4.

(2.) THE insolvent Ganpat is the father of four sons. Two of them, Ghanshyam and Punjabrao, were major on 23rd March 1940, the date with which we are concerned. The other two, Baba and Madhukar, were minors. On 23rd March 1940 all five executed a sale-deed in favour of the appellant. This deed is Ex N.A-12. Ganpat and the two major sons signed on their own behalf. The two minor sons were represented by their father who acted as their guardian.

(3.) WE stress the words which we have underlined (here italicised) because the sons are not parties to the present proceedings, and it has been assumed in their absence that the debt was the debt of the father alone and not a family debt for which the joint family as a whole would have been liable even if Ganpat had not been the father. The importance of this will emerge when we develop the argument.