TMI Blog1944 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears for a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for ; and time begins to run when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to him. The table given below shows the relationship of the parties to the suit who are members of a Hindu family descended from one Balaji Kanago: 2. Balaji had two sons, Annaji 1, Ramchandra 1. As found by the High Court they separated in 1865. The elder, Annaji, died leaving a son Tammaji. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by plaintiffs 1 and 2. Ramchandra 2 and Annaji 2, the two sons of Jiwaji who was the son of Tammaji, against respondent 1 Laxman who was defendant 1, and his minor son Raghavendra, respondent 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 16th November 1920 which she had made before she died on 19th November 1920 and that defendant 1 as the guardian of his son came into possession of those properties. The plaintiffs met this plea with the case that Appaji was induced to execute the deed by the undue influence of defendant 1 and his wife Shakuntalabai and that therefore the gift was invalid. Lastly, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation. Issues 5, 6 and 9 which are as follows, relate to the validity of the gift set up by the defendants and their plea of limitation. Issue (5) Is the gift by Appaji to Shakuntalabai proved ? (6) If so, do plaintiffs prove that it was brought about by undue influence? (9) Is the plaintiffs' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and not void, they held that Art, 91 applied to the case and time began to run against Appaji who was aware of the character of the transaction from the date of the document, viz., 24th May 1915 and that the suit was barred as it was brought beyond three years from that date. They also held that Section 10, Limitation Act, also relied on by the plaintiffs would not apply to the case. In the result, they allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. 4. Having regard to the findings of the High Court which their Lordships find no reason to reject, the main question for determination before the board, as stated already, is whether the suit is barred by Article 91, Limitation Act, If the deed of gift is a void tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances, their Lordships do not find any sufficient reason to differ from the opinion of the High Court that Appaji made the gift voluntarily. The transaction is therefore not void, but only voidable as induced by undue influence and requires to be set aside before the properties conveyed by it could be claimed by Appaji or by anyone claiming through him. 5. Under Art, 91, Limitation Act, limitation begings to run from the time the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to him. It is true that Appaji became insane in or about July 1917, and continued so, until his death in 1923; but he was fully aware of the character of the transaction when he executed the deed in 1915 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 10, Limitation Act, which says: no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration), for the purpose of following in his, or their, hands such property or proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property or proceeds, shall be barred by any-length of time. Their-Lordships do not think it is necessary) to examine this argument beyond saying that as Section 10, Limitation Act, applies only to a case of property which has become vested in trust for a specific purpose which certainly is not the case here, that section can have no application to the present case. For the above reasons, their Lor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|