Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 17
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI
SAHU RAM CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
BHUP SINGH - Respondents
On Appeal From The High Court at Allahabad.
Decided On : March 9, 1917.
Solicitors for appellants: T. C. Summerhays & Son.
A mortgage of joint family property is invalid if the loan was taken on the faith of the mortgage itself, as such a debt is not an "antecedent debt." Pious obligation cannot validate such a mortgage while the father is alive unless the debt benefited the estate.
Headnote:(A) Mitakshara Law - Alienation of joint family property - General rule: joint family property owned by coparceners cannot be the subject of a gift, sale, or mortgage by one coparcener without the consent, express or implied, of all other coparceners - Exception: the father, as manager and head of the family, may dispose of joint property for "necessary purposes" or for the benefit of the estate.
(B) Pious Obligation - Duty of sons and grandsons to discharge the debts of the father - While the father is alive, the pious obligation alone cannot validate a mortgage over joint family property unless the debt was truly incurred for the interest of the estate itself - Responsibility to meet a father's debts is distinct from the validity of a mortgage over the joint estate.
(C) Antecedent Debt - Exception allowing alienation of joint property to discharge a debt incurred prior to the alienation - To qualify as an "antecedent debt," the obligation must have been incurred wholly apart from the ownership of the joint estate and without relying on the security afforded by such joint estate - A loan obtained on the faith of a mortgage is not an antecedent debt, and treating it as such would be a breach of trust.
Facts of the case:
A father of a joint Hindu family mortgaged a share of joint family property to secure a loan. The loan was not for family necessity. The mortgage was later sought to be enforced against the father, his sons, and grandsons. The lower courts had dismissed the suit on the ground that the debt was not borrowed for family necessity.
Findings of Court:
The debt was not for the benefit of the estate. Because the father was still alive, the pious obligation of the sons did not justify the mortgage. Furthermore, the loan was not an antecedent debt because it was advanced at the time of and on the faith of the mortgage itself.
Issues: Whether a mortgage granted for a loan taken at the time of the mortgage constitutes an "antecedent debt" under the applicable law, and whether the pious obligation of sons to pay a father's debt validates such a mortgage while the father is alive.
Ratio Decidendi: A debt is "antecedent" only if it was incurred independently of the joint estate and without relying on the security of that estate. A loan taken on the faith of a mortgage is not an antecedent debt. The pious obligation of sons cannot be used to validate a mortgage over joint property while the father is alive unless the debt was for the estate's benefit.
Result: Appeal disallowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
family law
-
hindu law
-
mitakshara law
- joint family property
-
mitakshara law
-
hindu law
-
property law
-
mortgage
- enforcement
-
mortgage
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (May 26, 1913) affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri.
The first six respondents were members of a joint Hindu family, governed by the Mitakshara, Bhup Singh being the father and the other five his sons and grandsons.
On January 6, 1883, Bhup Singh borrowed Rs.200 from one Bhagirath under a hypothecation bond which stated that the money was borrowed to meet the necessity of Bhup Singh. The bond provided for interest at Rs.18 per month, subject to half-yearly rests, and hypothecated a one-biswa share in a zamindari, the property of the joint family, but described as belonging to the borrower.
In 1884 Bhup Singh mortgaged the same property together with other joint family property to the father of the appellants. In 1893 the appellants, their father being dead, sued to enforce the mortgage of 1884, and a decree was made in their favour conditional upon their discharging the prior mortgage in favour of Bhagirath. They accordingly paid the amount due upon the bond into Court under 8. 83 of Act IV. of 1882 ; the Court paid the money over to Bhagirath, and the bond was made over to the appellants. The appellants executed their decree against the property comprised in their mortgage of 1884 and themselves became the purchasers.
In 1910 the appellants instituted the present suit upon the bond of 1883 against the respondents, namely, Bhup Singh, his sons and grandsons, together with certain persons who were in possession of part of the property under mortgages and sales subsequently made by Bhup Singh. They claimed Rs.15,000, together with further interest, and, in default of payment, a sale.
The defendants, so far as is material to the present decision, pleaded that the money was not borrowed for family necessity.
The Subordinate Judge found that it was not so borrowed, and dismissed the suit.
The High Court, after disposing of other contentions raised by the appellants, said " ii, is next urged that it lay upon the defendants to show that the debt was incurred for immorality, or for some other purpose not justified by Hindu law, and that unless this was proved the plaintiffs ought to get a decree. The Full Bench ruling of this Court in Chandradeo Singh v. Mata Prasad (1. L. R. 31 Allah. 176.) is contrary to that contention." The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The High Court, considering that a substantial question of law was involved, gave leave to appeal.
1917. Jan. 25, 26. De Gruyther, K.C., and W. A. Raikes, for the appellants. It not being proved that the debt was tainted with immorality, the appellants were entitled to a decree. The view of the minority of two judges in Chandradeo Singh v. Mata Prasad (I. L. R. 31 Allah. 176.) was correct and that of the three judges forming the majority, erroneous. The power of the father of a Mitakshara joint family to alienate the joint family property so as to bind his sons rests upon the pious duty of the sons to discharge the debts of the father unless they are incurred for immoral purposes. The decisions of the Privy Council speak of an antecedent debt, but that expression connotes no distinction which, in the case of a mortgage, would exclude the debt which is the consideration for its execution. Lord Hobhouse in delivering the judgment of the Board in Musmmat Nanomi Bahuasin v. Modun Mohun (( 1885) L. R. 13Ind. Ap. 1.) said that " the sons cannot set up their rights against their fathers alienation for an antecedent debt, or against his creditors remedies for their debts," and this appears to include the remedies of a mortgagee upon his mortgage. The question as to whether the debt for which a mortgage is executed is an antecedent debt within the meaning of the various decisions of the Board has been a matter of great conflict of opinion in Indian High Courts. The decision, however, of the Calcutta High Court in Maheswar Butt Tewari v. Kishun Singh (I. L. R. 34 Calc. 184.) has not been overruled, and it
