SARDA PRASAD AND OTHERS versus LALA JUMNA PRASAD AND OTHFERS.

SARDA PRASAD AND OTHERS versus LALA JUMNA PRASAD AND OTHFERS.

Application for execution of the partition decree was barred by limitation as the managing member could have given valid discharge of the liability under the decree by accepting possession on behalf of his minor sons, and so time ran against them under Section 7 from the date of the decree. Order 32 Rules 6 and 7 were not applicable as the case did not involve receipt of money/movable property or compromise/agreement on behalf of minors.

Parties
Appellants: Sharda Prasad and others; Respondents: Lala Jumna Prasad and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Allahabad High Court in Execution First Appeal No. 224 of 1951
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution Proceedings, Partition Decree, Minor Rights, Hindu Joint Family, Limitation Period Under Section 7 of the Limitation Act
Limitation Law Civil Procedure Hindu Law Execution Proceedings Partition Decree Minor Rights Hindu Joint Family Limitation Period Under Section 7 of the Limitation Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharda Prasad and others

Appellants

Lala Jumna Prasad and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Allahabad High Court in Execution First Appeal No. 224 of 1951

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether application for execution of partition decree by minor sons is barred by limitation when father failed to execute within limitation period.
  2. 2 Whether Section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to a partition decree and whether the managing member can give discharge on behalf of minor sons under such decree.
  3. 3 Whether Order 32 Rules 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the managing member from validly discharging liability under the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

Application for execution of the partition decree was barred by limitation as the managing member could have given valid discharge of the liability under the decree by accepting possession on behalf of his minor sons, and so time ran against them under Section 7 from the date of the decree. Order 32 Rules 6 and 7 were not applicable as the case did not involve receipt of money/movable property or compromise/agreement on behalf of minors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for execution of partition decree barred by limitation
  • Appeal dismissed with costs