LAWS(BOM)-1948-2-9

ATMARAM MANEKLAL PARIKH Vs. BAI HIRA

Decided On February 23, 1948
ATMARAM MANEKLAL PARIKH Appellant
V/S
BAI HIRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Parikh Atmaram Maneklal, was the defendant in the main suit which was brought by the respondent, Bai Hira, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmeadabd for a declaration that a document dated June 12, 1926, was not binding on her and for certain consequential reliefs. THE chief question in the appeal is whether these consequential reliefs are time barred by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908 ).

(2.) THE respondent is the widow of the appellant's son Balabhai who died intestate and without issue on February 18, 1926. THE family had been an undivided Hindu family, but on December 81, 1925, a physical partition took place between Balabhai on the one hand and the remaining members of the family on the other. Balabhai had received before his death immoveable and moveable properties valued at Rs. 1,12,000 and there remained certain properties to be physically divided. Among the moveable property received by him were ornaments to the value of Rs. 13,500. THE value of the whole moveable and immoveable property, other than the family property which remained to be divided, left by Balabhai was about Rs. 1,25,000.

(3.) THE respondent's mourning ended in January, 1927, and she then went to reside for two months at Viramgam where her maternal grandfather lived. THEreafter she again resided in the appellant's house until May, 1928, when she took up residence in the house allocated to her by the agreement. THEre is a dispute about the sum spent on the house by the appellant and it is the subject of a cross appeal which will be dealt with hereunder. THE provision in the agreement for the respondent's retention of ornaments worth Rs. 5,000 was not carried out according to its terms and in lieu of the ornaments the respondent was given and accepted gold to the value of Rs. 3,800-7-9 and cash amounting to Rs. l,199-8-3. THE sums provided for in Clauses (3) and (4) of the agreement were deposited at Interest in November, 1927, and the respondent thereafter received the interest accrued on them.