MST. RUKHMABAI versus LALA LAXMINARAYAN AND OTHERS

MST. RUKHMABAI versus LALA LAXMINARAYAN AND OTHERS

The trust, partition and relinquishment deeds were sham and not genuine. The suit property is joint family property. The admissions by members had limited probative value; the suit was not barred by limitation as the right to sue accrued only when there was clear and effective threat to respondent's possession...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mst. Rukhmabai; Respondent: Lala Laxminarayan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 November 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal From High Court Reversal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decree in favor of respondent affirmed
Legal Topics
Joint Hindu Family, Partition, Deed of Relinquishment, Trust, Limitation, Specific Relief
Hindu Law Property Law Civil Procedure Joint Hindu Family Partition Deed of Relinquishment Trust Limitation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mst. Rukhmabai

Appellant

Lala Laxminarayan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal From High Court Reversal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trust deed executed by Govindprasad was a sham and the suit property is joint family property
  2. 2 Whether the admissions made by family members accepting partition have probative value
  3. 3 Whether new points regarding bar under Specific Relief Act and Limitation Act can be raised at appellate stage

Ratio Decidendi

The trust, partition and relinquishment deeds were sham and not genuine. The suit property is joint family property. The admissions by members had limited probative value; the suit was not barred by limitation as the right to sue accrued only when there was clear and effective threat to respondent's possession (partition by Commissioner in 1937), and the suit was filed within six years.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decree in favor of respondent affirmed

Orders

  • Costs awarded to respondent
  • Suit was within limitation