RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. SUBRAMANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by defendant 3 from a decree for partition which was made by the Civil Judge in appeal. The material facts are these: Defendants 1 and 3 were brothers and belonged to a Hindu joint family. When defendant 1 was adjudged an insolvent under the provisions of the Insolvency Act, his right title and interest in his share of the family properties was sold by the Official Receiver on April 1, 1950 and that sale was confirmed. The purchaser- at that sale was the plaintiff's father in whose favour a sale deed was executed by the Official Receiver on July 12, 1950.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was next brought on July 12, 1962 for delivery of possession to the plaintiff of the fifth share which had been purchased by his father. The plaintiff became entitled to a fifth shaw since the defendants' other brothers are not parties to this litigation. The Civil Judge negatived the contention that the suit was barred" by limitation and the plea of limitation was founded almost exclusively upon the fact that although the suit was brought within 12 years from the date of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father, defendant 3 was impleaded as a party to the suit subsequently and after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the sale deed. But the Civil Judge was of the opinion that possession of defendant 3 was possession on behalf of the plaintiff's father who had purchased defendant 1's share in the family property and that there could be no bar of limitation.

(3.) The view taken by the Civil Judge receives full support from the enuniciation made by the Supreme Court in Manikiyala Rao v. Narasimha swamiAIR .1966 SC. 470 in which Sarkar J. as he then was delivering the majority judgment of the Court said this in the context of the right of a purchaser of an undivided share of a coparcener in Hindu joint family property: