Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (No.18 of 1946) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (August 17, 1939) modifying in the main case, a judgment and decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad and confirming, in the other case, a judgment and decree of that judge, all dated February 24, 1934.

Bai Hira, the plaintiff in the main case (respondent in the first two appeals and appellant in the cross-appeal), sued the defendant (the appellant in the first two appeals and respondent in the cross-appeal) for a declaration, in effect, that a document dated June 12, 1926, had been obtained from her by the defendant by the exercise of undue influence and that it was not binding on her, and for consequential reliefs.

Both courts below held that undue influence had been established but the trial court, whilst granting the declaration sought for and certain other consequential declarations, held in effect that any claim by the plaintiff to recover property from the defendant was barred by limitation. The High Court (Wadia and Indarnaryan JJ.) on the other hand, held that no part of the claim was barred, and the main question in these appeals was whether the plaintiffs claim in the main case was in whole or in part barred by limitation.

The facts and the provisions of the document of June 12, 1926, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1948. Jan. 12, 13, 14. Sir Thomas Strangman K.C. and Jayakar for Parikh Atmaram Maneklal.

Khambatta K. C. and Umrigar for Bai Hira.

Feb. 23. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Norm and. The appellant, Parikh Atmaram Maneklal, was the defendant in the main suit which was brought by the respondent, Bai Hira, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad for a declaration that a document, dated June 12, 1926, was not binding on her and for certain consequential reliefs. The chief question in the appeal is whether these consequential reliefs are time barred by art. 91 of The Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908).

The respondent is the widow of the appellants son, Balabhai, who died intestate and without issue on February 18, 1926. The family had been an undivided Hindu family, but on December 31, 1925, a physical partition took place between Balabhai on the one hand and the remaining members of the family on the other. Balabhai had received before his death immovable and movable properties valued at Rs. 1,12,000, and there remained certain properties to be physically divided. Among the movable property received by him were ornaments to the value of Rs. 13,500. The value of the whole movable and immovable property, other than the family property which remained to be divided, left by Balabhai was about Rs. 1,25,000.

The respondent, who was Balabhais heir entitled to succeed to his whole property, went on his death to reside in the appellants house, and on June 12, 1926, she and the appellant executed the document which she now seeks to set aside. This document provided (1.) That the respondent should have the right of residence during her life in a house, which was part of Balabhais estate, valued at Rs. 17,000, and that the appellant should repair the house according to the respondents suggestions at a cost of about Rs. 3,000 and should also pay the insurance premia and the municipal taxes in respect of it. (2.) That the respondent was to retain ornaments of the value of Rs. 5,000. (3.) That Rs. 12,500 were to be deposited at interest which the respondent was to receive, with liberty to spend Rs. 10,000 of the principal in charity, and that after her death the appellant should spend out of the sum then remaining such amount as would make up the Rs. 10,000 to be given to charity, and that he or his heirs and representatives should take the residue. (4.) That Rs. 7,500 should be deposited at interest which the respondent was to receive, and that the principal should belong to the appellant and his heirs and representatives. (5.) That in case of any loss of the