Fact -
In this case, the father alienated a part of the joint family property, by executing a mortgage deed. Later, he executed a second mortgage deed on the same property for the interest accrued on the principal amount. In an action by the creditor (mortgagee) of the second mortgage, it was held that the debt was antecedent to the second mortgage and binding on the sons.
Issues -
The issues or principles involved in the instant case are:
1. Whether the second mortgage of the joint family property by A constitutes 'Antecedent debt'?
2. Whether the Doctrine of Pious Obligation extends (is applicable) to the present case?
The above two questions can be answered in affirmative on the ground that:
i) the Deb under the second mortgage is antecedent of the mortgage in fact as well as in time and hence, it is valid and binding.
ii) The Doctrine of the Pious Obligation extends to the sons S1 and S2, in the instant case as it was not established / proved that A has used the amount (mortgage money) for immoral purpose. In other words, debt is not Avyavaharika and hence binding on the sons.
Judgment :
The privy council through Lord. Dunedin CJ, held that the debt under the second mortgage is antecedent of the mortgage in fact as well as in time and binding. Further, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation exists not only after the death but also during the lifetime of the father and hence the debt is binding on the sons.
In this case, the father alienated a part of the joint family property, by executing a mortgage deed. Later, he executed a second mortgage deed on the same property for the interest accrued on the principal amount. In an action by the creditor (mortgagee) of the second mortgage, it was held that the debt was antecedent to the second mortgage and binding on the sons.
Issues -
The issues or principles involved in the instant case are:
1. Whether the second mortgage of the joint family property by A constitutes 'Antecedent debt'?
2. Whether the Doctrine of Pious Obligation extends (is applicable) to the present case?
The above two questions can be answered in affirmative on the ground that:
i) the Deb under the second mortgage is antecedent of the mortgage in fact as well as in time and hence, it is valid and binding.
ii) The Doctrine of the Pious Obligation extends to the sons S1 and S2, in the instant case as it was not established / proved that A has used the amount (mortgage money) for immoral purpose. In other words, debt is not Avyavaharika and hence binding on the sons.
Judgment :
The privy council through Lord. Dunedin CJ, held that the debt under the second mortgage is antecedent of the mortgage in fact as well as in time and binding. Further, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation exists not only after the death but also during the lifetime of the father and hence the debt is binding on the sons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment