Venkataramanna and Others vs Venkayya

It appears that the suit was brought upon a bond executed by defendant to plaintiff''s father, who is now dead, and there is nothing to show that

on the face of the bond the debt is described as being a debt due to the joint family consisting of the father and the son. It may be that the money

was advanced from the father''s private funds. A son is prima facie taken to succeed to a debt due to his father by right of inheritance, unless his

succession by survivorship is indicated on the face of the bond creating the debt. Though Act VII of 1889 applies only to cases of succession, it

states in the preamble that it is intended to afford protection to parties paying debts to the representatives of deceased persons. It would naturally

impair the protection intended to be afforded by the statute to throw in every case on the debtor the obligation of making an inquiry at the time of

payment, whether the person claiming to recover the debt claims by right of survivorship or of inheritance. Our answer, therefore, to the question

referred to us is that defendant is entitled to insist on the production of a certificate under Act VII of 1889, unless it appears on the face of the

bond that the debt claimed was due to the joint family consisting of the father and the son.