Back
ABDUR RAHIM, KRISHNASWAMI AIYAR
Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri – Appellant
Versus
Polavarapu Veeracharlu – Respondent
What is the legal necessity or legitimate family purpose under Hindu Law for a mortgage for marriage expenses? What is the status of the third defendant’s share in the mortgaged property when the loan was raised for the marriage expenses of a coparcener? What is the binding effect on coparceners regarding a mortgage executed for the marriage expenses of a junior member?
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the concept of necessity and legitimate family purpose under Hindu Law in relation to mortgage for marriage expenses. (!) - It holds that the marriage of the second defendant was a proper family purpose, making the third defendant’s interest in the mortgaged property liable for the mortgage debt. (!) - It analyzes authorities on the powers of a Hindu manager of family property and the evidentiary standard of "sufficient and reasonably credited necessity." (!) (!) - It compares and distinguishes prior cases (e.g., Hunoomanpersaud Panday, Suraj Bunsi Koer, Mahadeva Pandia, Sarvana Tevan, Garibullah) in assessing necessity for marriage expenses. (!) - It notes that marriage is an initiatory ceremony (Samskara) among Sudras and is generally obligatory, supporting its consideration as a legitimate family purpose in this context. (!) (!) - The Subordinate Judge’s decree was set aside regarding the third defendant, and the District Munsif’s decree was restored; no costs were awarded. (!) - The opinion discusses moral and religious obligation texts and the Kaṭore and Mitakshara views on marriage as part of Samskāras influencing the debt’s validity. (!) - It emphasizes the need for prudent management and reasonable necessity rather than absolute indispensability in validating such mortgages. (!) (!) - The judgment cites numerous authorities to affirm that defraying marriage expenses of a coparcener can be a valid family purpose, binding on coparceners. (!)
Abdur Rahim, J.
1. I entirely agree is the conclusion reached by my brother Krishnaswami Aiyar in the learned and instructive judgment which he is about to read. I have nothing to add. The decree of the Subordinate Judge will be set aside as regards the third defendant, and that of the District Munsif will be restored. There will be no coats.
Krishnaswami Ayyar, J.
2. This second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the Subordinate Judge disallowing the plaintiffs claim against the third defendants share in the mortgaged property. The mortgage was executed by the first defendant, the father, and the second defendant, the adult son, while the third defendant a minor was represented by the father, who also signed the document as his guardian. The money was borrowed for the marriage expenses of the second defendant. The defendants have been dealt with as Sudras in this case, and no question has been raised as regards the correctness of that view. It is contended that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the marriage expenses of the second defendant are not under the Hindu Law a justifiable necessity for the borrowing of money and the execution of the mortgage
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
