Impartible coparcenary succession follows survivorship and primogeniture absent custom; limitation and valid representation can bar challenge to execution sales.

Impartible coparcenary property under Mitakshara was treated as descending by survivorship among brothers of the relevant class, with primogeniture applying only where no special custom displaced it. A challenge to an earlier decree and execution sale failed on limitation because the special limitation for setting aside the sale controlled, and the general possession article could not override it. Allegations of fraud, immoral debt, and defective representation also failed where the minors were found to have been sufficiently represented by their natural guardians and later by a court-appointed guardian, and where no trustworthy evidence showed fraud or illegality in the debt or sale. The prior proceedings were therefore binding.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (ii) whether, on the merits of succession, the appellant was entitled to the impartible zamindari in preference to his uterine brother; (iii) whether the appellant and his predecessor in title were properly represented in the earlier suit and execution proceedings; (iv) whether the decree-debt was immoral or tainted by fraud.

Issue (i): whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The relevant challenge was to the setting aside of the earlier decree and court-sales and to recovery of immovable property sold in execution. The Court held that the appellant attained majority on 5 May 1882 and rejected the contention that a minor had three years, rather than the period fixed by the special article, to sue to set aside an execution sale. It further held that the general article for suits for possession could not displace the special limitation governing the case, and that the claim to set aside the sale for fraud also failed because fraud was not proved.

Conclusion: The suit was time-barred.

Issue (ii): whether, on the merits of succession, the appellant was entitled to the impartible zamindari in preference to his uterine brother.

Analysis: The estate was found to be impartible coparcenary property of a joint Hindu family. The Court held that, in such a case, succession is determined by the rules applicable to coparcenary property, modified only by impartibility, and that nearness of blood does not displace the operation of survivorship among brothers. In the absence of a special custom, primogeniture operates as the rule of selection among the brothers entitled to succeed. Applying that principle, the eldest surviving brother was the proper heir.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled in succession to the zamindari as against the uterine brother.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant and his predecessor in title were properly represented in the earlier suit and execution proceedings.

Analysis: The Court found that the minors had been sufficiently represented by their mothers as natural guardians and, later, by the Collector acting as guardian ad litem under the Court's order. The objections based on defective description, ex parte conduct, non-service, acceptance of the claim, failure to resist future instalments, want of adjournment, and want of attachment were rejected as either unfounded or not amounting to prejudice, fraud, or want of authority.

Conclusion: The earlier proceedings were held to be binding on the appellant and his predecessor in title.

Issue (iv): whether the decree-debt was immoral or tainted by fraud.

Analysis: The Court accepted the documentary evidence showing that the debt originated in family and estate liabilities incurred for binding purposes and that it was later merged in a decree in proceedings to which the relevant interests were substantially represented. The allegations of immorality and fraud were not supported by trustworthy evidence, and the Court declined to interfere with the earlier debt and execution sale on that ground.

Conclusion: Neither fraud nor immorality was proved.

Final Conclusion: Although the succession issue was decided in the appellant's favour, the Court held that the suit and appeal were defeated by limitation and by the binding effect of the prior decree and execution proceedings, and the decree of dismissal was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In succession to impartible coparcenary property governed by Mitakshara, the governing principle is survivorship among brothers of the relevant class, with primogeniture operating in the absence of special custom, while a challenge to an earlier decree or execution sale must fail where the claim is barred by the applicable special limitation and no fraud or invalid representation is established.

---