Madras High Court
Prem Devi vs K.C.S.C.Balakrishnan(Died) on 20 July, 2023
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.20877 of 2019
1.Prem Devi
2.Bharath Singh .. Petitioners
vs
1.K.C.S.C.Balakrishnan(died)
2.B.Nagamani
3.B.Jayakumar
4.Meena Kumari
(R2 – R4 brought on record
vide order dated 20.07.2023) .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2019
passed in IA No.1/2019 in OS No.2600 of 2016 on the file of XV
Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Mukund Rao
For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy
ORDER
I.A.No 1 of 2019 in O.S.No.2600 of 2016 has been filed for
rejection of plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
2. O.S.No.2600 of 2016 is a suit for recovery of money for
a sum of Rs.10,86,156/-. The claim is based on the rent control
decree. It is the admitted case that the father of the civil revision
petitioner was a tenant under the respondent.
3. Since the agreed rent paid to the land lord is not a fair
rent, R.C.O.P.No. 1861 of 2012 was filed before the X Small
Causes Court at Chennai. The fair rent was fixed at Rs.52965/- per
month. On 05.10.2014, the father of the civil revision petitioner
vacated and handed over the possession. Therefore, from the
period of filing the RCOP till the date of vacating the premises,
according to the plaintiffs, the defendant is liable to pay the fair
rent.
4. Pending proceedings, the sole defendant died and his
legal representatives were brought on record. They took out an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. According to them,
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, had undergone amendment
in the year 2005, removing the concept of “pious obligation” and
hence the legal representatives of the deceased defendant are not
liable to pay the amount. The petition was dismissed, against
which, the present petition has been presented.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
5. The concept of pious obligation arises when the son
pays the money on behalf of the father from and out of his
earnings. That is, the son is answerable to the debts incurred by
his father as the pious obligation from his own funds and it applies
only to ancestral properties. Here is a case where the father is the
judgment debtor. Having failed to pay the difference between the
agreed rent and fair rent, the suit has been presented. The legal
representatives of the deceased defendant are answerable to the
debt to the extent to which the property of the deceased had come
into their hands.
6. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Keshav Nandan Sahay and Ors v The
Bank of Behar (AIR 1977 Pat 185) in fact goes against the civil
revision petitioner because in that case the Court had held that
sons are liable for the debts incurred by the father.
7. The other judgment cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Solairaj v Vijayarani and others CRP (PD)
(MD) No. 575 of 2018 arose in the context of a joint family liability,
which does not arise here. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
the deceased defendant and the sons were living in joint family.
8. This is a simple suit for recovery of money for
difference between the fair rent and agreed rent. Under such
circumstances, the question of importing the principle of amended
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not arise at all. A
reading of the plaint does not show that the plaint is barred.
Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
The XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ssm
C.R.P.No.3204 of 2019
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
