A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case of Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Others [1954 SCR 177] stands as a landmark decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dealing primarily with the pious obligation doctrine under Mitakshara Hindu Law and the enforceability of debts contracted by a father against the undivided coparcenary interests of his sons. The ruling reaffirmed the Privy Council’s precedent in Nanomi Babuasin v. Modun Mohun (13 I.A. 1), establishing that a creditor could enforce a decree obtained against a father for a non-immoral debt by attaching and selling not only the father’s own interest but also the interests of his sons in joint family property, even in the absence of their formal inclusion in the suit or execution proceedings. The apex court clarified that the liability arises purely out of the spiritual and moral tenet of piety, and the procedural omission of not including sons in the execution proceedings does not affect the validity of such sales. Moreover, the court ruled that a purchaser of such undivided interests acquires only a right to seek partition and not joint possession or a share of income until actual partition occurs. This judgment harmonizes religious doctrine with enforceability under civil law and underscores the role of implied representation by a father in joint Hindu families.

Keywords: Hindu law, pious obligation, joint family property, Mitakshara, debt enforcement, partition, execution sale, coparcenary interest, Supreme Court of India, creditor rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeals Nos. 53 to 55 of 1951

iii) Judgment Date:
5 October 1953

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, and N. Jagannadhadas, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice B.K. Mukherjea

vii) Citation:
[1954] SCR 177

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Hindu Mitakshara Law – principles of pious obligation, procedural laws under CPC relating to execution of decrees and partition suits.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None explicitly overruled, but clarified the application of Nanomi Babuasin v. Modun Mohun beyond karta-led families.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Hindu Law, Property Law, Civil Procedure, Family Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Patna High Court that modified a trial court decree granting 4 annas share to the appellant in joint family property. The issue revolved around the legal extent of title acquired by the plaintiff via an execution sale of a debtor’s undivided interest in a joint Hindu family. The father, a non-karta member, had been sued individually and his 4 annas share was sold in execution of a decree obtained against him. The High Court limited the plaintiff’s title to only 1 anna 4 pies, asserting the father couldn’t represent his sons since he wasn’t the karta. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the creditor could enforce recovery from the entire branch’s interest based on pious obligation and the purchaser could claim partition rights accordingly[1].

D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Defendant No. 1, Bhubneshwar Prasad, borrowed money from one Panchanan Banerjee. Upon default, Panchanan sued him and obtained a decree, following which he attached and purchased Bhubneshwar’s interest in joint family property (Tauzi No. 703). At the time, Bhubneshwar was living jointly with his father, grandfather, and sons. Though not a karta, Bhubneshwar’s interest was described as 4 annas in the sale certificate. Later, Panchanan sold the property to the appellant, Sidheshwar Mukherjee, who filed for partition and claimed 4 annas share. The sons objected, arguing their shares weren’t affected as they weren’t parties to the suit or execution. The trial court upheld the plaintiff’s 4 annas claim. However, the High Court limited it to 1 anna 4 pies, prompting the Supreme Court appeal[2].

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a purchaser in execution of a decree against a non-karta father can acquire the joint interest of the sons under the pious obligation doctrine?

ii) Whether the absence of sons as parties in the suit or execution nullifies the transfer of their interests?

iii) Whether such a purchaser is entitled to share profits or possession before partition?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner submitted that the entire 4 annas share of Bhubneshwar Prasad included the interests of his sons and hence validly passed to the decree-holder and thereafter to the appellant. They emphasized that under Mitakshara law, the sons’ obligation to discharge non-immoral debts of their father permitted creditors to proceed against joint family property, including the sons’ interests. Citing Pannalal v. Naraini, [1952] SCR 544, the counsel argued that the creditor’s rights do not depend on the karta status of the father. The judgment-debtor’s role as a father suffices to extend liability to the sons’ shares. Furthermore, relying on Nanomi Babuasin v. Modun Mohun, 13 I.A. 1, the petitioner submitted that execution sales against the father’s share included the entire sub-branch interest, even without the sons being parties to proceedings[3].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondents submitted that Bhubneshwar, being only a junior member and not karta, had no authority to bind his sons. Therefore, the sale could not affect their undivided shares. They argued the creditor could have only proceeded against Bhubneshwar’s personal interest, not the entire 4 annas. They further asserted that as sons were not parties in the suit or the execution, no valid title to their shares could pass. The High Court accepted this argument and limited the purchaser’s claim to 1 anna 4 pies—the share Bhubneshwar could claim individually upon partition. They denied any entitlement of the purchaser to income or possession of property in absence of actual partition[4].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Hindu Law (Mitakshara School) – Sons’ pious obligation to pay non-immoral debts of their father.

ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 64 (Execution of Decree); Section 9 (Jurisdiction of Civil Courts); Section 52 (Execution against legal representatives); and procedural aspects of partition suits.

I) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under Mitakshara law, the sons are liable to discharge debts contracted by their father, provided the debts are not tainted by immorality or illegality. This pious obligation arises not from their status as coparceners but due to their relationship as sons. The liability permits a decree-holder to enforce recovery by sale of both the father’s and the sons’ interests. The court ruled that even if the father was not karta, he sufficiently represented the family branch, and the absence of the sons in proceedings did not invalidate the sale. Thus, the plaintiff rightfully acquired a 4 annas share[5].

b. OBITER DICTA 
The Court observed that a purchaser of an undivided coparcenary interest does not gain joint possession or profits automatically. Such a purchaser must file for partition to define their share and can claim possession only upon actual allotment. Till then, they hold no right to claim mesne profits or income from the joint property[6].

c. GUIDELINES 

• A creditor may attach and sell both the father’s and sons’ undivided shares if the debt is non-immoral.

• Sons’ shares pass to the purchaser without their formal inclusion in the proceedings.

• Sons retain the right to challenge the debt as immoral either by defense or through a separate suit.

• Purchasers of undivided interests cannot demand income or possession without seeking partition.

• The absence of karta status does not negate the representative authority of the father.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a remarkable reaffirmation of the doctrinal synthesis of religious obligation and legal enforceability. It harmonizes traditional Hindu principles with modern civil procedure by asserting that the liability of sons flows from their moral obligation and not merely from procedural technicalities. The judgment establishes procedural economy by affirming that execution against a father can encompass sons’ interests, subject to their ability to contest the nature of the debt. It also lays down a definitive stance on the rights of auction purchasers, placing practical limits on their claims absent partition. The decision is pivotal for Hindu family property law and will continue to influence cases involving ancestral debts and partition rights.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Nanomi Babuasin v. Modun Mohun, 13 I.A. 1
[2] Pannalal v. Naraini, [1952] SCR 544
[3] Lalta Prasad v. Gazadhar, I.L.R. 55 All. 28
[4] Chhote Lal v. Ganpat, I.L.R. 57 All. 176
[5] Virayya v. Parthasarathi, I.L.R. 57 Mad. 190
[6] Bhagbut Pershad v. Mussamat Girja Kuar, 15 I.A. 99
[7] Minakshi Naidu v. Immudi, 16 I.A. 1
[8] Mahabir Prasad v. Markandey, 17 I.A. 11
[9] Sridhar v. Tagore, 44 I.A. 1
[10] Edavelly v. Narasimhulu, I.L.R. 25 Mad. 149

b. Important Statutes Referred
[1] Hindu Mitakshara Law – Pious obligation principle
[2] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 64; Section 52; Section 9
[3] Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of proof on sons to show debt is immoral