The abolition of the doctrine of pious obligation under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, does not absolve legal representatives from liability for the deceased's debts; they remain liable to the extent of the property/estate inherited from the deceased.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.128/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The substantial question of law framed by this Court on 12.08.2024 is as under:

“Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court interfering with the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.128/2011 in respect of the Ex.P1 is just and proper?”

2. Heard Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.S. Ganesha, learned counsel for the respondents on the substantial question of law framed by this Court.

Plaint averments:

3. The plaintiff instituted suit for recovery of `1,00,750/-, contending that the deceased Govinda borrowed a sum of `1,00,000/- for legal necessity and he issued a post-dated cheque (Ex.P1) towards discharge of the said debt. The cheque was dishonored for insufficient funds. After his death, the defendants, being the legal representatives, failed to discharge the liability despite notice. Hence, the suit for recovery of money.

Written statement:

4. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement, inter alia, denying the loan transaction in toto and contending that the plaintiff is a stranger and the claim is fabricated. It is stated that the deceased had no financial necessity and defendants have disputed the liability on the ground that they are not liable as legal representatives.

5. The Trial Court framed necessary issues. In order to substantiate the claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, marked documents at Exs.P1 to Exs.P7. Smt. Devamma, wife of late Govinda was examined as DW.1, however, no documents were marked on their behalf.

6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that Ex.P1-cheque belongs to the deceased and signature was not disputed. Presumption under Sections 118 (a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’ for short) operates in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants failed to rebut the presumption. The Trial Court observed that the plaintiff proved existence of a legally enforceable debt and accordingly, decreed the suit in part, directing payment of amount with interest.

7. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the loan was for legal necessity and that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants had inherited the estate of the deceased. By invoking Section 6 (4) of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, it held that the legal representatives were not liable and accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Appellate Court being the last-fact finding Court, has ignored the statutory presumption attached to Ex.P1, the signature and the issuance of cheque not being in dispute, the presumption of debt stands established. It is contended that the finding regarding non-existence of the estate is beyond the pleadings and unsupported by evidence. Learned counsel submits that the First Appellate Court has misapplied Section 6 (4) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and that the liability of legal representation is only to the extent of the estate inherited and is no