JADDU PADHI Vs. CHOKKAPU BODDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred to a bench by Pandalai, J. The plaintiffs, two brothers, sued for a declaration that the sale executed by their mother, defendant 2, to defendant 1 was not valid. It was found that plaintiff 1 had attained majority more than three years before the suit was filed, and accordingly the District Munsif dismissed the suit. The District Judge confirmed the finding of fact and that is not now disputed. In this Presidency it has been settled by the Pull Bench decision, Doraisami Sorumadan V/s. Nondisami Saluvan A.I.R. 1915 Mad. 1201 that in circumstances like the present, if one brother comes of age and allows three years to pass before suing, time has run against the younger brother also. But the District Judge refused to follow this ruling, because of a Privy Council ruling in Jawahir Singh V/s. Udai Parkash A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 16. Hence the appeal.

(2.) In that case the two younger sons sued to set aside an alienation joining as defendants their father and their elder brother who bad allowed three years to pass without suing. As the father was still living, this elder brother had never been manager of the family so as to be able to give a discharge and on the facts, Section 7, Limitation Act, could not possibly apply. This was conceded by Mr. Dube who appeared for the appellant alienee: The father was alive when the suit was brought. Fateh Singh had not been managing member; it is conceded therefore that the failure of Fateh Singh to bring a suit probably did not render the present suit barred. The sale was however valid...p. 153.

(3.) On p. 155 the High Court judgment and decree under appeal are summarised and then the judgment proceeds: From this decree Jawahir Singh has appealed to His Majesty in Council. The same contentions that were urged in the High Court have been advanced before the Board.