AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 107 words
1.
The Subordinate Judge is in error in thinking that a sale or mortgage by the father cannot bind the son''s share in the absence of an antecedent
debt. The ruling in Venkatramanayya v. Venkatramana Das ILR (1905) M. 200 must be read with reference to the facts of that case.
2.
If there is justifying necessity for the sale or mortgage, the son''s share would, undoubtedly, be bound, and this is not disputed before us. The
erroneous view of the law taken by the Subordinate Judge has vitiated his judgment.
3.
We, therefore, set aside his decree and remand the appeals for disposal according to law.