Lal Bahadur Singh v. Sispal Singh

Tyrrell and Knox, JJ.:— This was an action brought by a member of a Hindu family for a declaration of his title to one-quarter of the ancestral estate and to obtain possession of the same by partition. The defendants, are the cousins of the plaintiff and his uncle, who during the plaintiff's minority divided the estate between them in the year 1877. The plaintiff and the seventh defendant are descendants of Saran Singh, who was entitled to one moiety of the whole estate; the defendants one to six being the sons of Saran Singh's brother, and, as such, entitled to the other moiety. But in the transaction of 1877 an arrangement was made between the plaintiff's uncle on the one hand, and the defendants one to six [499] on the other under which such estate was divided between them, the former getting f, the latter only. It may be taken, though the evidence on the point is slender, that the plaintiff was 14 years old or thereabouts when his father, Gajadhar Singh, died in 1877. He was therefore sui juris in 1881 or 1882. In 1884 he brought a suit in forma pauperis to get the relief he now seeks. The suit was one which obviously must fail, and he withdrew it. He brought the present suit in May, 1887, being then aged about 24 years. He pleaded that he was not bound by his uncle's act in 1877; that his uncle had no authority as his natural guardian or otherwise to dispose of his title to the estate; that his uncle's acts, even if they professed to have been done on the plaintiff's behalf in 1877, were not and could not be a bar to the present suit, nor could they of themselves convey to the defendants one to six a good title to a part of the plaintiff's rights and interests in the ancestral estate under the Hindu law. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff referred to the law on the subject as laid down in Dunja Prasad v. Kesho Persad Singh(1) and Khan Karan v. Har Dayal(2) and contended with force that, except under some express authority of law, Rup Narain Singh, defendant No. 7, was incompetent to make any valid disposal of his nephew's estate during his minority. We have read the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment, and it seems to us that his reasons for taking the contrary view are unsound. The learned vakil who supported the decree below urged that the suit is haired by the three years' limitation of arts. 95 and 96 of sch. ii of Act No. XV of 1877 and he cited Natha Singh v. Jodha Singh(3) and Bajaji Krishna v. Pirchand Budharam(4) in support of his contention. Those rulings do not apply to the facts before us. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the Court below on this issue. Upon this the learned vakil intimated his assent to an order remanding the case for trial upon the merits under s. 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of the preliminary finding of law that the plaintiff is not bound in law by the arrangement made by the seventh defendant and his uncle in 1877 [500] with the other defendants, or by the subsequent proceedings connected with the alleged arbitration award.

Setting aside the decree below, we order accordingly, costs heretofore being costs in the cause.

Cause remanded.