Skip to content


Ram Kishen and ors. Vs. Baldeo Koeri and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All247a
AppellantRam Kishen and ors.
RespondentBaldeo Koeri and ors.
Excerpt:
.....and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the suit was thus clearly time barred as far as ram kishen is, concerned......of the suit had not been born at the time that the alienation was made. the suit was thus clearly time barred as far as ram kishen is, concerned.3. it is also time-barred in regard to the remainder as they were not in existence at the time that the alienation was made, on the principles laid down in sita ram singh v. cheddi singh a.i.r. 1924 all. 789. the view taken by the learned judges had been accepted as correct by their lordships of the privy council in a recent suit from oudh ranodip v. permeswar prasad which has not yet come into the regular reports. it is reported in the all india reporter of 1925 at page 33.4. it has been suggested that their lordships of the privy council took a contrary view in banwari lal v. mahesh a.i.r. 1918 p.c. 118. it is not the case that they took a.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. The only points argued in this appeal are the points that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the sale was not for legal necessity.

2. In respect of the first point the facts are very clear. Ram Kishen Ram, Das, Ram Subhag and Ram Karan the sons of Ram Raj brought a suit to set aside a sale which Ram Raj had made of certain ancestral property on the 18th February, 1907. The plaintiffs and Ram Raj are members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. It has been found on the facts by the learned District Judge and this finding cannot be attacked in second appeal that Ram Kiahen was over twenty-one at the time of the institution of the suit and that the other three plaintiffs who were minors at the time of the institution of the suit had not been born at the time that the alienation was made. The suit was thus clearly time barred as far as Ram Kishen is, concerned.

3. It is also time-barred in regard to the remainder as they were not in existence at the time that the alienation was made, on the principles laid down in Sita Ram Singh v. Cheddi Singh A.I.R. 1924 All. 789. The view taken by the learned Judges had been accepted as correct by their Lordships of the Privy Council in a recent suit from Oudh Ranodip v. Permeswar Prasad which has not yet come into the regular reports. It is reported in the All India Reporter of 1925 at page 33.

4. It has been suggested that their Lordships of the Privy Council took a contrary view in Banwari LaL v. Mahesh A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 118. It is not the case that they took a contrary view. They refused to interfere in that appeal in respect of alienation which had been made before the plaintiff was born. This finding is sufficient to dispose of the appeal.

5. I need only add shortly that I agree with the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of legal necessity. This appeal is dismissed with costs on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //