LexSARDA PRASAD AND OTHERS versus LALA JUMNA PRASAD AND OTHFERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
't· I L , 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 875 We therefore allow the appeals, set aside the order 1961 of the High Court and restore that of the. Custodian Custodian of dated December ll, 1952 .. This of course will not take Evacuee Prop111y, a.way the right if any of the. respondents to approach Bangalore the Custodian-General, for we ha-ve not <JOn~dered v. the merits of the order of December 2, 1952. In the KhanSahebAbdul · f th' d t Shukoor circumstances o . 1s case we pass no or er as o costs. Wanchoo ]. Appeals allowed. SARDA PRASAD AND OTHERS v. LALA JUMNA PRASAD AND OTHF.RS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. C. DAs GuP'rA, JJ.) Limitation-Execution-Decrre for joint possessic;i in favour of Hindu father and minor sons-Failure of father to exewte within the period of limitation-Right of sons; if barred-Indian Limitation Act, I908 (9 of z908), s. 7-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908); 0. ,3a, rr. 6, 7. A decree dated September 2, 1938, in a suit for partition of joint Hintlu family property awarded a house to the share of one J and his lour minor sons. J failed to execute the decree. On November 23, 1949, an application wa; made by the appellants, the four sons of J, for execution of the decree stating that throe of them had been minors till then and one of them was still a minor and so no question of limitation arose. The respondent objected that the application was barred under s. 7 of the Indian Limita- tion Act. The appellants contended that s. 7 did not apply to a partition decree and thats. 7 was no bar as J conld not have given a valid discharge of the liability under the decree in view of the provisions of 0. 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hel1, that the application for execution was barred by limita- tion. J, the managing member of the family could have given a discharge of the liability under the partition decree by accepting JA)Ssession on behalf of his minor sons without their conseP.t and so time ran against them under s. 7 from the date of the decree. Order 32, rr. 6 and 7 were no bar to J giving a discharge of the liability under the decree as it was neither a case of receipt of any money or movable property nor was there any question· of enter- ing into an agreement or compromise on behalf of the minors. Ganesha Row v. Tuljaram Row, (1913) L.R. 40 I.A. 132, Parm.shwari Singh v. Ranjit Singh, A.LR. 1939 Pat. 33 and Letchmana Chetty v. Subbiah Chetty, (1924) I.L.R. 47 Mad. 920, referred to. 1961 F8bruary ao. 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) r961 CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appea.1 Sa1da P1asad No. 2?6 of1956. v. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Octo- L•I• JumnaP1asadber 15, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Execution First Appeal No. 224 of 1951. S. P. Sinha a.nd Tiryugi Narain for the a.ppella.nts. G. O. Mathur, for respondent No. I. 1961. February 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · Das Gupta J. DAs GUPTA, J . ...,....This appeal raises a. question of limitation in execution proceedings. The decree sought to be executed wa.s made by the Civil Judge, Kanpur, on September 2, 1938, in a suit for partition brought by two brothers Jumna Pra.sa.d and Devi Prasad and two minor sons of J umna. Pra.sa.d, against Ga.jju La.I, his son Ja.wala. Prasad, the four minor sons· of Jawala. Pra.sa.d-Sharda. Pra.sa.d, Dha.ra.m Pa.I, Ram Pa.I and Krishna. Pal, and one Smt. Sunda.ri. By the decree one of the properties, a house formerly bearing No. 36/22 and now 36/58, Eta.we. Bazar, Kanpur, was awarded a.long with other properties to the defendants in the suit. The present application for e~ecution was ma.de by the four brothers, Sharda. Pra.sarl, Dha.ra.m Pal, Ra.m Pa.I and Krishna. Pa.I on Novem- ber 23, 1949. The prayer was that ·these applicants ma.y be delivered possession over this Eta.we. Bazar house a.long with Ga.jju La.I, Ja.wa.la. Pre.sad and Smt. Sunda.ri on dispossession of Jumna. Pra.sa.d and Devi Prasad .. It is stated in the application that all these applicants had " up till now been minors and one of them is still a. minor and so no question in respect of time a.rises." This, it is important to note, was the first application for execution of the partition decree. A number of objections we.re raised; but the princi- pal objection and the only one with which we a.re concerned in this a.ppea.l was that the application was barred by time. The decision of this ques
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.