GANGADEO SINGH Vs. RAM PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in this litigation are members of a joint family which consisted of three brothers, Sakaldeo Singh, Gangadeo Singh and Deonandan Singh. When the record-of-rights was under preparation the three brothers were minors; but Sakaldeo Singh, on behalf of his brothers, entered into a compromise with the defendants, whereby he abandoned the claim to certain land which had hitherto been in possession of the plaintiffs family. After Sakaldeo came of age he separated from his brothers. THE present suit was instituted by Gangadeo Singh and Deonandan Singh for recovery of possession of this land of which the wrong entry had been made in the record-of-rights. THE suit would then have been barred by time if it had not been for the plaintiffs minority. Sakaldeo had come of age, and had separated from the plaintiffs, so the Munsif held that he would not have been entitled to any relief by the application of the provisions of Section 7, Limitation Act, though, as Sakaldeo claimed no relief in the suit in which he was a defendant, that point did not necessarily arise. Gangadeo was jointly entitled to his share with Deonandan, and the Munsif finding that Gangadeo could not give a discharge or ratification of the agreement of Sakaldeo without the concurrence of Deonandan, held that the provisions of Section 7, Limitation Act, did not bar the suit jointly instituted by Gangadeo and Deonandan, since Deonandan is still a minor. He decreed the suit accordingly in respect of the plaintiffs shares. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found that Gangadeo Singh as karta of the joint family was entitled when he came of age to give a discharge to the defendants, that is to say, to ratify an arrangement into which Sakaldeo had entered; and he held that the plaintiffs claim was barred by limitation and dismissed the whole suit.

(2.) MR. Rai Tribhuwan Nath Sahay, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants, argues that the mere coming of age of Gangadeo Singh, so long as his brother is a minor, will not render the suit liable to be barred; and he contends that there is no evidence from which the inference can be drawn that Gangadeo Singh is the managing member of the family. Without evidence to show that Gangadeo Singh acted as the manager, it cannot be presumed that he did so, or that he was the manager, and was so authorized to ratify Sakaldeo's arrangement. This was pointed out in Ganga Dayal V/s. Mani Ram (1909) 31 All 156, a case which was approved by the Judicial Committee in Jawahar Singh V/s. Udai Prakash AIR 1926 PC 16. It had been held by the Madras High Court in several decisions that time would run from the date on which the eldest member of the joint family attained majority; but the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Dayal V/s. Mani Ram (1909) 31 All 156 differed from those decisions; and in Jawahar Singh V/s. Udai Prakash AIR 1926 PC 16 the Privy Council expressed the view that on this point the decision of the Allahabad High Court had been correct and the decisions of the Madras High Court were wrong. MR. Tribhuwan Nath Sahay has been able to demonstrate that there is no evidence on the record from which it can be inferred that Gangadeo Singh is the managing member of the family. The only evidence regarding anybody's acting as general agent of the joint family is evidence to the effect that this work had been done by the brother-in-law of the plaintiffs, and there is nothing to indicate that either Sakaldeo or Gangadeo ever at any time exercised the authority of a karta of the joint family. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be presumed that Gangadeo Singh is the manager, as was remarked in Ganga Dayal V/s. Mani Ram (1909) 31 All 156 and the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge must accordingly be set aside. The appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside, and the decree of the Munsif is restored. The successful plain tiffs are entitled to their costs throughout.