Baramdeo Singh and Others vs Lal Bahadur Sah

Saunders, J.—This is an application u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act by the defendants to set aside a decree for a sum of money in a suit based upon a hand-note. The money was borrowed from the opposite party by a widow to enable her to pay arrears of rent and for her maintenance. The suit was brought after her death against the reversioners who had come into possession of her husband''s estate. It is also alleged that another purpose for which money was required was the repair of a house; but this purpose is not mentioned in the hand-note and there is no definite finding in respect of it in the judgment of the lower Court.

It is stated in the order that the debt will be payable out of the assets which the applicants received on the widow''s death.

The main ground of the application is that as the creditor had accepted the personal liability of the widow he is not entitled to proceed against the estate even if, as has been found, the money was borrowed for legal necessity. In the case of Gadgeppa Desai v. Apaji Jivanrao (1878) 3 Bom 237 it was held by the Bombay High Court that the reversioners were under no legal obligation to repay a loan taken in similar circumstances although it was for the benefit of the estate.

In Sakrabhai Nathubhai v. Maganlal Mulch and (1902) 26 Bom 206 a Full Bench of the same High Court decided that trade debts probably incurred by a Hindu widow on the credit of the business to which she succeeded as heiress of her deceased husband are recoverable after her death from the assets of the business as against the reversioners who have succeeded thereto even in the absence of a specific charge on the estate; but it was held in Bhagwatrao Abaji v. Ramnath Kaniram AIR 1928 Bom 310 that this decision did not overrule the decision in Sakrabhai Nathubhai v. Maganlal Mulchand (1902) 26 Bom 206 because it concerned trade debts and not debts incurred in the course of the management of the estate for which it was held again the estate was not ipsofacto liable.

It has also been held by the Allahabad High Court in Dhiraj Singh v. Manga Ram (1897) 19 All 300 that the creditors of a Hindu widow cannot after her death have recourse to ancestral property in the hands of the reversioners if in fact no instrument charging the property beyond the widow''s lifetime has been executed by the widow even though the debt sued upon was incurred for legal necessity and was one in respect of which such property might have been made liable beyond the widow''s lifetime. The learned Munsif has considered himself bound by the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Ramcoomar Mitter v. Ichamoyi Dasi (1881) 6 Cal 36 and Hurry Mohun Rai v. Ganesh Chunder Dass (1884) 10 Cal R 823(F B).

In the former case, which was decided in 1880, it was held that a debt incurred by a Hindu widow for the purpose of defraying the marriage expenses of a grand-daughter, though it could not properly be considered a charge on the grand-father''s estate, was legally recoverable from the heirs who succeeded to the estate after the widow''s death. This case was decided on the special consideration that if the girl had not been married before she attained puberty spiritual consequences of a most serious kind might have been expected, according to the Hindu doctrines, to arise both to the deceased father and the deceased grand-father which it was the duty of the widow to avert.

The other case concerned a contract made by a Hindu widow having life interest in an estate to obtain lime for the repair of houses comprised in the estate. The question for consideration was

under what circumstances a contract or a transaction giving rise to pecuniary liability entered by a Hindu female representing the estate is binding upon the heir of the last male owner after her death,

and it was held that the heirs were liable on a contract entered into by a widow which not only conferred a benefit upon the estate but was necessary for its good management. In the present case the debt was not incurred by the widow as representing the estate.

The learned Advocate for the opposite party referred to Regella Jagayya v. Venkata Ratnamma (1910) 33 Mad 492 but this case is authority only for the proposition that a debt contracted by a widow as a representative of the estate for the purposes of the estate will be binding on it in the hands of the reversioners, though no formal charge on the estate is created, when the creditor looks not to the personal credit of the widow but to her as a representative of the estate and relies on the credit of the estate. Such is not the case here. When the opposite party took a hand note from the widow he relied solely upon her personal credit. The learned advocate referred also to the case of AIR 1929 191 (Nagpur) , in which property in the hands of Hindu reversioners was found to be liable for the satisfaction of a debt not secured on the property, which a widow while enjoying a widow''s estate probably incurred in the course of management though no specific charge was created.

In that case, however it was found that the wording of the bond which the widow had executed clearly showed that the money was borrowed on the credit of the estate. When the widow executed a hand note in the present case she incurred only a personal obligation which the reversioners are not in my opinion liable to discharge.

The application must therefore be allowed with costs and the suits dismissed with costs. Hearing fee one gold mohur.