Heirs are liable for debts of the deceased only to the extent of their share in the estate, excluding debts incurred after death.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The defendant in O.S.No.258 of 2017 is on appeal, aggrieved by the decree for partition granted by the Trial Court, declaring 1/2 share of the plaintiff and concluding that the plaintiff would be liable for the home loan alone.

2. The plaintiff sued for partition contending that the suit property belonged to her son, Dhandapani, who died intestate on 01.10.2016, leaving behind herself, his mother, and the defendant (wife of Dhandapani) to succeed to his estate.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the said Dhandapani had incurred debts towards towards housing loan, personal loan through credit cards, jewel loan and also private borrowings from his friends. Therefore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff would be liable to pay 50% of these debts. On the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property?

ii) To what other reliefs?

4. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. The defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record found that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share as the mother of the deceased Dhandapani. It also concluded that the plaintiff would be liable to repay the home loan which was borrowed by Dhandapani. As regards the other loan transactions namely, two loans through credit cards, a jewel loan and private borrowings as evidenced by Exs.B6 to B13, the learned Trial Judge rejected the claim of the defendant on the ground that all the promissory notes namely, Exs.B6 to B13 were time barred and the jewel loan was taken by the defendant after the death of Dhandapani. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be expected to share the said liability. For the loans borrowed on credit cards also, the learned Trial Judge rejected the claim of the defendant and concluded that the plaintiff would be liable to share only the housing loan. The claim of the plaintiff that her husband gave Rs.10,00,000/- to Dhandapani for purchase of immovable property was also disbelieved by the Trial Court. On the said findings, the Trial Court granted preliminary decree for 1/2 share and held that she is also bound to pay the total liabilities of the home loan. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant is on appeal.

5. We have heard Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that though as the mother, the plaintiff would be entitled to share in the properties of the son, she would also be liable to pay the debts of the son. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Trial Court was not right in rejecting the claim for repayment of the debts except the home loan. The learned counsel would draw our attention to the documents which would demonstrate that the deceased Dandapani had indeed borrowed monies from various sources and, the defendant after the death of Dhandapani had settled the home loan, credit card loans and the jewel loan. The personal loans borrowed from friends on the strength of Exs.B6 to B13, remained unpaid. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Trial Court was not right in rejecting the claim for repayment of the other loans except the housing loan.

7. Contending contra, Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the jewel loan was borrowed after the death of Dhandapani on 06.02.2017 and therefore, the mother as an heir of Dhandapani, cannot be made liable to answer the claim. On Exs.B6 to B13, the learned counsel would contend that all of them are time barred debts as the promissory notes are dated between the years 2012 and 2015 and the demand letters which have been produced by the defendant are created for the purposes of the suit. We have considered the rival submission