LexLords NRI Legal Services Leicester By NRI Legal Services LexLords

1 in the present case was a junior member and not the karta of the family and consequently had no rights of disposal over his own interest or the interest of his sons in the joint property. But if the father was not the karta, this principle, it is said, would not apply and the purchaser could only acquire the right, title and interest of the father alone even though the court purported to sell the interest of the sons as well.

On such exhortation, Mohan Ram " PW-1 had told the accused-appellant and the co-accused, that he would not allow them to kill Mohan Lal " PW-15 at his residence, but they did not listen to him, and continued to hurl filthy abuses. The NRI Legal Services learned Judges of the High Court seem to be of the opinion that the principle enunciated by the Judicial Committee in Nanomi Babuasin's case(1) or the other cases that followed it could apply only when the father was the head of the family and in that NRI Legal Services capacity could represent his sons in the suit or the execution proceeding.

Of such a smaller unit consisting of the father and his sons, the father would undoubtedly be the head and NRI Legal Services representative, although he is not the head of the larger unit. He asserted, that Mohan Ram " PW-1, was sitting outside the gate of his house, whilst he himself, his wife and children, were in the house. It will be noticed that in that case the members had associated themselves together for the purpose of insuring each other's life on the principle of mutual assurance, that is to say, they contributed annually to a common fund out of which payments were to be made, in the event of death, to the representatives of the deceased members.

It was, therefore, a case of mutual assurance and the individuals insured and those associated for the purpose of meeting the policies when they fell in and receiving the surplus, were identical and it was said that that identity was not destroyed by the incorporation of the company. He confirmed, that they were holding pistols in their hands. The occurrence is stated to have taken place between 8 p. 187 father and they were made respondents; and it was only at a very late stage that the appellate court transferred them to the category of appellants.

If the difference is sought to be made on the basis of the father's capacity to represent the sons in any litigation, it may be said that, subject to the rights of the sons to assert and prove that the debt contracted by their father was not such as would be binding on them under the rule of Hindu law, the father even if he was not a karta, could represent the sons as effectively in the sale or execution proceedings as he could do if he was the karta himself.

In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was not right in holding that the plaintiff could not claim 4 annas share in the property on (1) 13 I. Without being a karta he could, as a father, completely represent his branch of the coparceners consisting of himself and his sons; and vis-a-vis his sons his position would not improve in any way by his being a karta of the family. He deposed, that the occurrence had taken place within 10/15 days of his moving to the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1.

It has been observed in a Madras case(1) and we think rightly that so long as the family remains joint, all the members of a branch or a sub-branch of the family can form a distinct and separate corporate unit within the larger unit. Naraini(1) "the father is power of alienating the family property for payment of his just debts may be one of the consequences of the pious obligation which the Hindu law imposed upon the sons; or it may be one of the means of enforcing it, but it is certainly not the measure of the entire obligation.

This way of approach does not seem to us to be correct. He deposed, that the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co- accused " Kashi Ram were calling him outside the house. Articles 245 and 246 reda with entry No. Lord Watson even went to the length of saying that the company in that case did not carry on any business at all, which perhaps was stating the position a little too widely as pointed out by Viscount Cave in a later case; but, be that as it may, all the noble Lords who formed the majority were of the view that what the members received were not profits but were their respective shares of the excess amount contributed by themselves.

It is true that in all the cases referred to above, the father was actually the head of the family but that does not make any difference in principle. L, 28, 184 been observed by this court in the case of Pannalal and Another v. It is settled law that even after partition the sons could be made liable for the pre-partition debts of the father if there was no proper arrangement for the payment of such debts at the time when the partition was effected, although the father could have no longer any right of alienation in regard to the separated shares of the sons.

The idea seems to be that if the father was incompetent to alienate the coparcenary rights of his sons for satisfaction of his own debts, the creditor of the father could not claim to occupy a better position. 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule empower Parliament to make laws with to taxes on income for the whole territory of India and limitation or restriction is imposed in regard to retroactive legislation [1951] S. This does not seem to us to be a sound view to take. " If the creditor's rights are deemed to be based exclusively upon the father's power of disposition over the son's interest, NRI Legal Services such rights must necessarily come to an end as soon as the father dies, or there is a partition between him and his sons.

The learned Judges of the High Court laid great stress on the fact that the defendant No. Those persons were alone the owners of the common fund and they alone were entitled to participate in the surplus. The majority of the Law Lords answered the question in the negative. It cannot be laid down as a pro- position of law that the creditor's power of proceeding against the son's share in the joint estate for recovery of the debt due by the father is co-extensive with the father's power of disposal over such interest.

He urged, that to avoid the appellant, NRI Legal Services he had surrendered the government accommodation allotted to him at Suleman-ki-Head and had moved to a rented accommodation, in the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1.