CHHAGANBHAI ICHHABHAI PATEL Vs. TULSHIBHAI LALLU PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admitted or proved facts are that the property in dispute appertained to the narva of one Jethabhai who died in 1896-97 leaving two sisters as his heirs. One of them, viz., Bai Raiba, died in 1904 and the other died in 1906. Jethabhai during his life-time had executed a lease on December 28, 1893, in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 a father and defendant No. 3's grandfather. The possession had throughout continued with the family of the defendants. Bai Raiba's son passed a sale-deed in respect of the plaint property in favour of the plaintiff in 1924, and the plaintiff brought the present suit and claimed therein a declaration that the alienation in favour of the defendants ancestors was void under the Bhagdari and Narvadari Act, and that even if it was not void, it was in the nature of a mortgage, and accounts should be taken and redemption ordered.

(2.) The Court of first instance held that the suit could not succeed because it was barred by limitation, and as to the nature of the transaction, the Court held that the terms of the lease were clear enough, and that Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act did not apply.

(3.) On appeal, the point as to the nature of the transaction seems to have been given up and the contention was confined to the point of limitation. The appellate Court followed the ruling in Chaturbhai V/s. Motibhai (1922) 34 Bom. L.R. 1315 and held that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed by the lower appellate Court.