https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292554 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. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 1894 00:00:00 +0521 Wed, 30 Dec 2020 15:54:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292554 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Feb 1894 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292554