The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 126 of the Limitation Act to determine the limitation period for suits related to property alienation under Hindu Law.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Ayling, J. who dismissed Second Appeal No. 1191 of 1914 filed by the plaintiff in a suit brought by him for recovery of 2/3rd share in certain properties, the remaining 1/3rd share having already been recovered by the plaintiffs elder brother in suit No. 241 of 1906.

2. The facts are a little complicated but the material ones might be shortly stated thus:

(a)The plaintiffs father sold away all his then remaining properties to one Sawmi Aiyangar for Rs. 4,000/- under a sale-deed dated February 1885.

(b) Sawmi Aiyangar brought O.S. No. 221 of 1887 for possession of the properties so sold. Razinamah decree was passed that on payment of a certain amount within a certain date, Sawmi Aiyangar should give up his claims over the lands. But if the plaintiffs father failed to make the payment Sawmi Aiyangar was to get possession of the properties through the Court, his purchase being upheld. Plaintiffs father failed to make the payment and so Sawmi Aiyangar got possession in 1899.

(c) In 1906 the plaintiffs elder brother (who was in his mothers womb in 1885, the date of the sale by the plaintiffs father) brought the suit No. 241 of 1906 making the plaintiff and the plaintiffs father and the purchasers from Sawmi Aiyangar parties to the suit. The plaintiffs brother ultimately succeeded in getting his alleged 1/3rd share decreed to him on payment of 1/3rd of the amount of Rs. 3,706 to which extent the consideration for the sale deed to Sawmi Aiyangar was held binding on the entirety of the properties sold. The second appeal to the High Court in the plaintiffs brothers suit was decided on the 4th February 1910.

(d) The present suit was brought very soon afterwards by the plaintiff who was born on the 20th December 1901. I must add here that the plaintiffs father died in 1908 during the pendency of the appeal in the plaintiffs brothers suit of 1906.

3. The above being the facts, the questions for decision are, (1) Was the compromise decree in O.S. No. 221 of 1887 obtained by fraud and collusion as alleged in the plaint? (2) The plaintiff not having been in existence in the year 1885 when the plaintiffs father sold the plaint property to Sawmi Aiyangar or in 1887 when the decree was passed in Sawmi Aiyangars favour or in 1889 when Sawmi Aiyangar got possession under the Razinamah decree in 1887, is the plaintiff entitled to question the said alienation? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4) What share is the plaintiff entitled to recover and on what terms, if the other questions are decided in his, favour?

4. I might at once state on the 4th question that as the plaintiffs father was entitled to 1/2 share on the date of the alienation (the plaintiffs elder brother who was in his mothers womb being then entitled to the other 1/2 share) and as the alienation is binding on the plaintiffs fathers share under the Pull Bench decision in Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti (1910) I.L.R. 35 Mad. 47 S.C. 21 M.L.J. 246, the plaintiffs elder brother in the suit of 1906 could have sued for the recovery of the other half share either on his own account or on behalf of himself and his younger brother, the plaintiff. But he chose to sue only for 1/3rd as belonging to himself and he has succeeded in getting a decree for that 1/3rd share in that suit to which the plaintiff was a party. So there remains only 1/6th share available to the plaintiff. The present suit for 2/3rd share is therefore clearly an exaggerated claim. Even as regards the 1/6th share, if he is entitled to recover it at all he can recover it only on payment of 1/6th of the Rs. 3,000 odd which was found in the former suit (to which he was a party) to be binding on the entire properties.

5. The question relating to the alleged fraudulent and collusive nature of the compromise decree in O.S. No. 221 of 1887 was not decided by the Lower Appellate Court and if the plaintiff succeeds on the other two questions the case