The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'excluded' in art. 127 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, in the context of a suit for partition of joint family property.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 23 of 1924) from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (September 22, 1922) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich (July 6, 1920).

The suit was brought in 1917 by the appellants against the respondents for partition.

Both Courts in India held that the property was joint and that it was not governed, as was pleaded, by a custom of impartibility and primogeniture.

The sole question on the appeal was whether the suit was barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. L, art. 127. The Subordinate Judge held that it was not, but on appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner it was held that the suit was barred.

The facts and the terms of art. 127 appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1926. May 18, 20. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellants.

The respondents did not appear.

July 1. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD ATKINSON. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated September 18, 1922, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a judgment and decree dated July 6, 1920, of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich. The main question for determination on this appeal is whether the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge held that it was not barred, and the Appellate Court took the opposite view, holding that it was barred.

The pedigree of the parties showing their descent from Lalta Singh, who died in the year 1882, the relation between them, and the position they have respectively taken up in the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen, are indicated in the pedigree as set out in the appellants case ; it runs as follows —

Lalta Singh (died 1882).

|

| | |

Lal Bahadur Sher Bahadur Singh. Nirman Singh.

Singh. (died (Defendant No. 5.) (Plaintiff No. 1.)

June 2, 1916.) | |

| |

|

|

| | | | |

Lal Rudra Dukh Haran Durga | |

Partab Singh. Bakhsh | |

Narain (Defendant Singh. | |

Singh. No. 2.) (Defendant | |

(Defendant No. 3.) | |

No. 1.) | |

| | |

| | | |

Bachcha Dalip Singh. Jagatjit Singh |

(minor). (Defendant (minor). (Defendant |

(Defendant No. 6.) No. 7.) |

No. 4.) |

| | |

Muneshar Bakhsh Bishambh Baldeo Bakhsh

Singh. (Plaintiff No. ar Bakhsh Singh. (Plaintiff

2.) Singh. No. 4.)

(Plaintiff

No. 3.)

The plaintiffs, Nirman Singh, Muneshar Bakhsh Singh, Bishambhar Bakhsh Singh and Baldeo Bakhsh Singh, commenced an action against the three sons of Lal Bahadur Singh, since deceased, who died on June 2, 1916, and Bachcha, then ten years of age, then a minor under the guardianship of his own father, Sher Bahadur Singh, and Dalip Singh. A paragraph of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs sets forth that the parties to the suit are members of a joint Hindu family, governed by Mitakshara law, and that no partition of any kind has ever been effected between the parties to the suit, or between the ancestors mentioned in their pedigree. In para. 3 it stated that Lalta Singhs own brothers died childless; that Lalta Singh thereupon became head of the joint Hindu family and entered into possession of the entire joint property; that at the time of the death of Lalta Singh, Nirman Singh, plaintiff No. 1, and his brother, Sher Bahadur Singh, were minors, and lived with their elder brother, Lal Bahadur Singh, that all the villages held in proprietary possession remained joint property, that mutation of names being effected in favour of Lal Bahadur Singh as the head of this joint Hindu family, during whose life all the members of the family remained as owners in respect of the joint family property; Lal Bahadur Singh died on June 2, 1916. The plaint stated that defendants from 1 to 4 then raised all sorts of disputes and filed objections against the mutation of names rendering it impossible to live in joint enjoyment of the family property; that, for this reason, plaintiffs then desired this property should be partitioned amongst the members of the family, but on November 27, 1916, defendant No. 1 finall