Fraud and concealment in limitation claims require specific pleadings; de facto guardian alienations fall within article 44.

A plea of fraud will not extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act unless the plaint sets out specific particulars showing active concealment of the right to sue; general allegations of suppression, non-disclosure of sales, or failure to account for proceeds are insufficient. The article also states that alienations by a de facto guardian are voidable and fall within article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that such transactions remain within that limitation framework where the factual basis supports it. On the stated facts, the plaintiff's receipt of the sale deeds in July 1947 meant that a suit filed in April 1954 was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was saved from limitation on the ground of fraud and concealment so as to attract section 18 of the Limitation Act, and whether the alienations by the de facto guardian were governed by article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: The plaint contained only general allegations of fraud and concealment and did not set out the particulars required by Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The alleged suppression of title deeds, non-disclosure of the sales, and failure to account for sale proceeds did not, by themselves, establish fraudulent concealment of the right to sue. The vague assertion that the mother had no property was not shown to be a deliberate representation made so as to keep the plaintiff from knowledge of her right. As regards the transferees, no specific averment of fraud or accessory conduct was made against them. The Court further held that alienations by a de facto guardian are voidable and fall within article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that in the facts of the case the sales were effected with the concurrence of the lawful guardians and were not shown to be outside that provision. Once the plaintiff admittedly obtained the sale deeds in July 1947, the suit filed in April 1954 was beyond the maximum period available even on the plaintiff's own case.

Conclusion: The plea of fraud and concealment failed, section 18 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable, article 44 governed the challenge to the sales, and the suit was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of fraud for extending limitation must be supported by specific particulars showing active concealment of the right to sue, and alienations by a de facto guardian are voidable and fall within article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

---