1969 (3) TMI 98 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Fraud Allegations Insufficient. Sales Valid. Suit Barred by Limitation.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish fraud with the ... - Issues Involved:1. Plea of Limitation2. Allegations of Fraud and Deception3. Validity of Sales by Guardian4. Applicability of Article 44 of the Limitation Act5. Role of De Facto GuardiansIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Plea of Limitation:The main question for decision in this appeal relates to a plea of limitation. The suit was filed on April 20, 1954, while the sales in question were effected in 1938. The plaintiff claimed that she only became aware of her right to sue in 1947 due to alleged fraud by the first defendant. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal's main point for determination is whether the suit was brought within the time allowed by law.2. Allegations of Fraud and Deception:The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant concealed the nature of her title and the management acts from her, claiming that the sales were effected without necessity and for inadequate consideration. The first defendant denied these charges, asserting that the sales were effected with the knowledge and approval of the plaintiff's husband and father-in-law. The court emphasized that general allegations of fraud are insufficient and must be specific. The court found that the plaintiff's claims lacked detailed particulars and were vague, failing to meet the requirements of Rule 6 of Order 7, Civil Procedure Code.3. Validity of Sales by Guardian:The sales were executed by the first defendant, who acted as the guardian of the plaintiff and her sister, the 12th defendant. The court found that the first defendant acted with the consent of the lawful guardians (the husbands of the plaintiff and the 12th defendant). The court noted that the 12th defendant never questioned the validity of the sales and did not participate in the trial.4. Applicability of Article 44 of the Limitation Act:The court discussed whether Article 44 of the Limitation Act, which pertains to setting aside alienations by a guardian, applied to this case. The court held that Article 44 applies to both de jure and de facto guardians. The court rejected the argument that the sales were void because the first defendant was not the legal guardian after the plaintiff's marriage. The court concluded that the sales were voidable, not void, and thus fell within the purview of Article 44.5. Role of De Facto Guardians:The court addressed the role of de facto guardians, noting that Hindu Law recognizes the power of a de facto guardian to deal with a minor's property in cases of necessity. The court found that the first defendant acted with the consent of the lawful guardians and that the sales were beneficial to the minors. The court concluded that the sales were binding on the minors and that the applicable provision of the Limitation Act was Article 44.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish fraud with the required specificity and that the sales were valid and binding. The court also held that the provisions of Article 44 of the Limitation Act applied, and the suit was not saved from the bar of limitation even if the plaintiff's allegations of fraud were accepted as true. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant was ordered to pay the court fee due on the memorandum of appeal.