Pokuri Sivaramiah and Another vs Vodde Audi Reddi and Others

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—The appellant is the decree-holder. He obtained a decree against the sons of a Hindu father in respect of a sum

due on a promissory note executed by the father and endorsed over to the decree-holder. A decree was passed against the assets of the father

now in the hands of his sons. The decree was sought to be executed under Sections 52 and 53 of the CPC and it was contended by the

defendants that the father did not have any separate properties of his own and that the decree cannot be executed against the joint family

properties. u/s 53 of the CPC the property in the hands of an undivided Hindu son or other descendant which is liable under Hindu Law for the

payment of the debt of a deceased ancestor, in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be the property of the deceased

which has come to the hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative. The matter was considered in Bhadri Venkataswami Vs.

Mandi Tata Reddy and Another, by a Bench of this Court of which I happened to be a member. It was held that a decree can be passed not only

against the separate assets of the father in the hands of his sons but also against the share of the father in the joint family properties obtained by the

sons by right of survivorship. This decision is followed by Rajamannar, J., in G.V. Krishnamurthi Ayyar Vs. R. Kailasam Ayyar and Another,

where he points out the effect of Section 53 of the CPC in respect of the claim made against the properties of a Hindu father obtained by right of

survivorship by the son on the death of the father and holds that under the section the decree-holder is entitled to proceed against the joint family

properties of the father obtained by his son by right of survivorship.

In these circumstances the order of the lower Court is set aside and the appeal allowed with costs throughout.