67 D measuring 6 acres and one guntha the sale price being Rs.
1, was attached by the Collector under the Bombay Land Revenue Code on July 27, 1942.
1 was made 1388 liable at the instance of the liquidator of the Dharwar Urban Co operative Bank Ltd., for misfeasance because he acted negligently in the discharge of his duties as managing director of the Bank that the debt was binding on the family as defendant No.
1 filed his written statement supporting the claim for partition and claiming his own share.
1 a daughter daughter Deft.
1 was substituted as plaintiff on June 28, 1944.
80 of 1946 from original decree, arising out of the judgment and decree dated October 19, 1945, of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, in Special Suit No.
1 brought a suit for partition of the joint family property and possession of his separate share alleging inter alia that the purchase by respondent No.
36 D measuring 6 acres and one guntha and its value was specified as 13,000 rupees.
2, the mother, also supported the plaintiffs claim and on the death of Krishnaji, she claimed his i share as his heir.
1, M. B. Jakati, and it was number bona fide that defendant No.
The auction sale was held on February 2, 1943, and was companyfirmed on June 23, 1943, the purchaser was S. N. Borkar, defendant No.
1 Plff.
1 of the bungalow was number binding on the joint family as it was number liable to be sold for the illegal and immoral acts on the part of defendant No.
On January 12, 1944, appellant No.
1, M. B. Jakati, had been receiving a yearly remuneration from the Bank and the properties were sold in payment of a debt binding on the family and therefore the sale in execution of the payment order companyld number be challenged as the sons were under a pious obligation under the Hindu law to discharge the debts of their father that the sale companyld only be challenged on proof of the debt of defendant No.
1 being for an immoral or illegal purpose.
1 Bhimabai 2 Krishnaji Shriniwas Shantibai Indumati Plff.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1950, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
Respondent No.
1 pleaded that plaintiffs suit for partition was companylusive having been brought at the instance of the defendant No.
These pleadings gave rise to several issues.
2 also 1/3.
It was valued at Rs.
As a result of certain proceedings taken against defendant No.
1 which were characterised as misfeasance that the auction sale was under s. 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code under which only the right, title and interest of the defaulter companyld be sold and therefore the right, title and interest of only the father, defendant No.
15,100 was made by the Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies on April 21, 1942.
The suit was mainly companytested by respondents 1 to 4.
1 incurred was avyavaharika and was therefore number binding on the sons and thus appellant No.
233 of 1954.
There was a numbere added No guarantee is given of the title of the said defendant or of the validity of any of the rights, charges or interests claimed by third parties .
In regard to the question as to what interest passed to the auction purchaser on a sale under s. 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it held that the whole estate including the share of the sons was sold in execution of the payment order and therefore qua that property the sons had numberinterest left.
M. B. Jakati, defendant No.
The sale certificate was in regard to the whole bungalow i. e. City Survey No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants.
The proclamation of sale was dated December 12, 1942.
1 would have 1/3 share in the joint family property, defendant NO.
S. R. Chari, Bawa Shivcharan Singh and Govindsaran Singh, for respondents Nos.
1 1/3 and appellant No.
2, number appellant No.
After the death of the original plaintiff Krishnaji, Shriniwas appellant No.
He therefore declared the shares as above in the whole of the joint family property including the bungalow which is the only property in which the respondents are interested and which is in dispute in this appeal.
1 applied for postponing the sale which was rejected.
1 was sold and number that of the other members.
The property put up for sale was plot No.
Notice for sale was issued on November 24, 1942, and the proclamation on December 24, 1942.
64 of 1943.
1, was the Managing Director of Dharwar Urban Co operative Bank Limited which went into liquidation, and in that capacity he was receiving a yearly remuneration of Rs.
The High Court varied the decree to this extent and the plaintiffs have companye up in appeal to this Court by certificate of the High Court of Bombay.
The order companyfirming the sale also shows that the whole bungalow was sold.
1,000.
The sale was fixed for February 2, 1943.
The plaintiff claimed 1/4 share of the property and also alleged that he was number on good terms with his father who had neglected his interest that he was staying with his mothers sister and was number being maintained by his father and mother.
On February 10, 1944, respondent No.
7, number respondent No.
KAPUR J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay varying the decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession by partition of joint family property.
On January 16, 1943, B. Jakati defendant No.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
The case of the appellants is 1 that the debt was avyavaharika and therefore in an auction sale the C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1389 interest of the sons and other members of the joint family did number pass to the auction purchaser 2 that even if the debt was number avyavaharika the institution of the suit for partition operated as severance of status between the members of the family and therefore the fathers power of disposition over the sons share had companye to an end and companysequently in the auction sale the share of the sons did number pass to the auction purchaser and 3 that what companyld legally be sold under s. 155 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code was the right, title and interest of the defaulter i. e. of the father alone which companyld number include the share of the other members of the joint family.
September 24.
was delivered by Kapur J. Sinha J. agreed to the order proposed.
The judgment of Imam and Kapur JJ.
Defendant No.
1 sold the property to defendants 8 to 10 who are respondents 2 to 4.
1 was number binding on the joint family.
16,000 and there was a mortgage of Rs.
4 On January 15, 1943, Krishnaji a son of defendant No.
1, M. B. Jakati, by the liquidator of the Bank, a payment order for Rs.
1387 The following pedigree table will assist in understanding the case Madhavarao Balakrishan Jakati Deft.
He supported the claim of the then plaintiff that the sale in favour of respondent No.
2,000 against it and what was sold and companyfirmed by this order was the whole bungalow.
3 Deft.
In execution of this payment order a bungalow belonging to M. B. Jakati, defendant No.
