SHIAM LAL Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs suit has failed in the Courts below inter alia on the ground of limitation.

(2.) It appears that a decree was obtained against the plaintiff-appellants father by one Ram Prasad. In execution of that decree the property in suit was attached and sold. Before the attachment the father had died and his sons, the appellants, were brought on the record with the Nazir as their guardian for the suit. Over 12 years after the sale of the property, and just within 12 years of the delivery of possession, the appellants brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to have the sale set aside and to recover possession, on the ground that they were not properly represented in the execution proceedings, and that the property could not be sold because the father having died as a joint member of a Hindu family it had become the sole property of the appellants.

(3.) The Court of first instance found that the debt was one which was binding on the plaintiffs. It found that there was no proper representation of the plaintiffs in the execution department, but it found that the suit was barred by limitation.