MOTHIKA MUTYALU Vs. MOTHIKA APPAYYALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiffs directed against the judgment of our learned brother. Vaidva, J., dismissing their appeal, gives rise to a short question of law. Whether or not the after-born sons can take advantage of the extended period of limitation provided under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?

(2.) In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly refer to the material facts which are not in dispute and which lie in a short compass.

(3.) The 1st defendant, who is the father of the 2nd defendant, alienated the land and a portion of the building belonging to the joint family to which both of them belong, on 25-8-1946 under a registered sale deed, Ex. A-1 in favour of the 3rd defendant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000.00. The alienee took possession of the property purchased by him, in the year 1948. The plaintiffs (appellants) who are the sons of the 2nd defendant, were born after the date of alienation in the years 1954 and 1957 respectively. The 2nd defendant filed O. P. No. 79 of 1951 in forma pauperis on the file of the Sub-Court, Vijayawada for a declaration that the sale deed. Ex. A-1 was sham and nominal and not binding on him. When he was directed, after due enquiry to pay court-fee on the plaint rejecting his claim to sue in forma pauperis he did not pursue the matter any further. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed by the after-born sons of the 2nd defendant on 11/07/1961 for a declaration that the suit sale deed executed by their grandfather, the 1st defendant for himself, and as the guardian of their father, the 2nd defendant, who was then a minor in favour of the 3rd defendant, is sham, nominal and void, or in the alternative, it is benami, and for partition of the same.