DIP CHAND Vs. MUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff- respondent for possession of certain zemindari share by cancellation of a sale- deed, dated 12 May 1917, executed by the plaintiff's mother during the plaintiff's minority. The plaintiff's case was that there was no necessity for the sale and that the sale was not binding on him.

(2.) The defence to the suit was that the sale was for necessity and for the benefit of the minor and therefore, it was binding on him. It was further pleaded in defence that the plaintiff's age was 25 and not 21, as stated in the plaint, and that the suit was time barred.

(3.) The consideration for the sale was Rs. 640, and both the Courts below agreed in holding that, out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs, 480 was for the benefit of the plaintiff and was binding on him and that the necessity for the remaining sum of Rs. 160 had not been proved by the vendee. On the question of limitation both the Courts below held that the suit was governed by 12 years rule of limitation and was not timebarred. In arriving at this conclusion the lower appellate Court placed reliance on decision of this Court reported as Bachchan Singh V/s. Kamta Prasad [1910] 32 All. 392. In view of the findings noted above, both the Courts below passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour for possession of the zamindari share in dispute conditional on the payment of Rs. 480 by the plaintiff to the defendants vendees. One of the defendants has preferred this second appeal, and it is argued on his behalf that the article applicable to a suit of the present description is Art. 44 and not Art. 144, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, and that the suit was time barred.