AS/5/1955 of SANKARA PILLAI PACHU PILLAI Vs KUMARA PILLAI KRISHNA PILLAI on 14 March 1956

Judgment.

N.Varadaraja Iyengar & Nandana Menon, JJ.Appeal Suit No.5 or 1955.Judgment.

Delivered by Nandana £i8!1on, J ._

·· This appeal is by the fi:rst defendsnt in the suit.'.[he circumstances leadL1'lg to this appeal arc as fol1osstTheDlstntiffs claimed to betheson~ of,yyappan PiliaiKumara ?illai of Mangalath Puthen V~~au.'£he dafendantsare the sons of Samara Pi1la1y brothor, deceased Sankara..Pillai.Sankara Pillai and Kmara P111ai had exec;ad ahypothecation bond copy of which is filedas Ex.C dated9. 3. 1104 in favour of one Bhan:+ Bhan Pandara hi1 for?000 fanarns.On the basis of that bond Pandarathil obtaineda decree in o.s. 616 of 1109r-3nd assigned th!1 rights -th0!'Emnder to one Bhaskart=tn Hayar.·when the assignee sought..to executethe docroe he first defendnt contended thatthe decree debt had been a1sch0rged.Theexecutinn courtupheld that plea but in appe~ltheassignee decroaholderwas allowed to realise the·whole debt f'rom?-Cu.rnn:ca Pillai.Thus the properties of KumaraPill~i socu ed for th~ debtbecame liable for the entire amo[1].mt due un'der the decree.'l'b.e plainti::'fs car.ie forward with the suitcontending that theamou...'1t had been borrowed for the purpose of Sanka:"::i Pillaiand hence they are entitled to be reimbursed with regard tothe entire decree debt from the assets of Sankara~111a1.The first de'endant contended, on the other hand, that thed betas i"'ncurred f'orthna purpose of;:o. ,"fc,'"w:m:ran.i. l.,,J.. 1.,_ai• n o1ne,that Sankara Pillai had no liability in the watter, that thedebt hn.d been discharged nnd hat the suit zas barred,venthestatusof theplaintiffs as th~legal representativesof Kumar PI!1ai mas questioned.'The1osr court held that '-the plaintiffsare the representativesin-interest of Kpara j Pill~i, that the debt was incurred for the benefit ofboth unara Pillai and Sankara Pillai and that both ofthem were liable to pay the decree debt in u. 3. 61,6 of1109 in' equal halves.Hence the claim of the"plaintifftor'calise one half of the decree debt was[u]p[h]el[d][.,]2. 2.e oniy point pressed in t!is[a];[p][e][a][l]5s thatthe diraction that the decree debt in[0].[S].616 of 1109is to be satisfiad by-0oth porties in equnl halves is not,poor.The other findings of thloe curtave correctand cannot be questioned.Hcgc1:rdi.ngi::::pporti'Jrnncnt, onbehalf ofthe a0pellartt it waspointedouttn~t the prin-ciple lald down in section 2 of the 'iranscr or PropertyAct has to be applied.ig±a ihe relevant portion of the saidsaction 1s as followsl "here pro.erty subject to a mortgage belongs to twoor more persons having di.•stir>ct and separate rightsof ovmership tricrein, the diff::;rent shares in or partsof such property owned ·by such persons are,in theabsence ofcontract to the contrary, liable tocorftribute rateably to the debt st.'.'cu.red by the mort-gage, and, for ttle purpose of detcru1ning the rateat which each such share or part shall contribute,the value thereof shall be deemed to be its valueet the date of the mortgage after deduction of theamount of' any other mor'gs,e or charge towhich it"my have been subjecton that date

Here no contract to the contrary is proved.80 applyingthe aforesaid section the a ebt is to be a pno ,·t ionE':ltl · on the-has1sof the value of the pronerties to each of thehypothecators et the time of the hypothection.houghthe trRnsRction in question was effected in Travancore areaat a time wh:en the T:ransfer of P:ronerty Act was not in force there st1.ll it is clear that the prince1le of svction82 is to be applied in vi0w of the decisions in the TravfincoreHLh Curt.Thus in Varghese v,@uscph (28 T.1.J. 521)where a similar rust;on arose for consideration 1t washeld that the pr:i.nciple laid dovm in sect:tor 32 is t,o hefollowad.At page 526 it is observed as follows:

"Section 82 of the Transfer of Property /\ct gives onlylts'tiasthuerto iryn e hfifs wecto trk ono t Mhe wortelgla kgenso, 6wn zth·u Eled sititaonte, pabyge688, in te following terms:

jI13Ii

.......,,

j~i

r

"If several estates(whether of one orseverfil owners)be mo-rt~,gcd !or o:r sub.1 cct equally to the debt ••••• •the several estates shrll eontr1buto rnteabl:, to th•debt, bid.ng valued for thr,t nuri,ose, after deducting. ti-om, each estate any other incumbrances by which it1s fo@ta.

''This rui~·•tosts-.p,:,n tho pri.nciple that the f'und, whichis equally l1able fr with nothcr to py the debt, shallnot·~gcnpe bcce1s~ tho creditor hes been·paid out ofhgotherundglone,Thnyoffcctoh_abovrle snd of soetion 22of therransforarvroporty Actklc?has given legislaive recognition to that rule 1s,that,· l'Jh(?.t"Gone of _tbc mortgr.rcd c states bas. [REDACTED]·'3 thao1ts own quota of 1iabi.lity, tho owner of thatestate 1s ont1tlto recovcr th.t edeess f!'om the otber--estates subj•:·ct to thn i.Gortgago and acquires a charge on those estntns''.

''·lhe svme principle has been 1nid do-wn in Kr1onrw ::yei: J., ''On the analogy of the principle laid down in SP.Ct1on 82of tht' r.nmafe:r of Pro)arty;ct, the contribution whicheach pt' il? hve to make il? hve tobe determinedon its value or, th(,;i.,,,-,te of the mortgng-o.In the amend.-....section 82, it is exprPssly stnted thnt tbc"'Jaluat!on, ot the pro :ertios for purpose::, of contribution should bemade ns t date of mortauge", So in the present easo the lower court nas roin directingboth prties to contrt!gogully to the doer.cf:' dt.!bt withoutgoing into the question nf thvnle of the respectivepropGr-~

they hav no n1a 3th ent1rc dc,creet4eht.Jo apportion-ment of the docre debt satisiad by the parties is tobemadecm. tho basis of· the vnlue of the prope:rti(:S ofCumorR Pillaiand Sankarri Pillai rnortgrg,d un1er ·,x.C on thnt dte.If anypart or the decree debt hnd bf!en discharged by the defendantsthat also has- toba, tsken into account.

3. In the res1itlt, tho lower court's decree is set.asidens regards that point nd the case remanded fora proper-apportio.nm.ent in the light ot tho observ::-1tLms made aboveand for thepassing of' a decroe,aceord1ng to law.The partiesto be allowed to adduce any a'.iditional e11dence necessary tor "'i.

i;,\~ i<\ij

.

''

thosaid purpose, Both parties will bear their ow costsin this court.The court fea paid w:lU be refunded.

Sd.1:f.Varadarsja Iyengar, Judge.Sd.P.D.landana Kenon, Judge •(True copy>

14. 3. 1956.

>°2..~Dy.Regitre tor Registrar.

-6,_j,s/.__•-f.-a--e:::a.a.---t,O<f?&,:

. .