Skip to content


Thakur Prasad and ors. Vs. Gulab Kunwar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All563; 87Ind.Cas.662
AppellantThakur Prasad and ors.
RespondentGulab Kunwar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....sen who appears for the respondents. according to this argument the suit was in reality time-barred, and so it appears to be having regard to the recent decision of their lordships of the privy council in ranodip singh v. parmeshwar prasad decided by the judicial committee on the 17th of november, 1924.4. the principle laid down by their lordships in that case, is that if at the date of the transfer there was in existence any person who had a cause of action for a suit to set aside the alienation, time begins to run and cannot be extended by the subsequent birth of other members of the family who would also be entitled to challenge the alienation. it is admitted here that on the date on which the alienation was made sri kishen was in existence and had a right to challenge the alienation.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought in order to avoid a certain transfer of what was alleged to be joint family property made by one Madhuban Das on the 27th November, 1903.

2. The suit was brought by two sons of Madhuban Das and one son of Sri Kishen who was the brother of Madhuban Das. Sri Kishen himself was arrayed as a defendant in the case.

3. It is not necessary for me to enter into the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal for a question of limitation has now arisen on the case put forward by Dr. Sen who appears for the respondents. According to this argument the suit was in reality time-barred, and so it appears to be having regard to the recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ranodip Singh v. Parmeshwar Prasad decided by the Judicial Committee on the 17th of November, 1924.

4. The principle laid down by their Lordships in that case, is that if at the date of the transfer there was in existence any person who had a cause of action for a suit to set aside the alienation, time begins to run and cannot be extended by the subsequent birth of other members of the family who would also be entitled to challenge the alienation. It is admitted here that on the date on which the alienation was made Sri Kishen was in existence and had a right to challenge the alienation which was made by his brother, and that being so, time expired either after twelve years from the 27th November, 1903 or after three years from the date on which Sri Kishen attained majority. It is admitted that, taking into account either period, the suit must be deemed to be barred. I therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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