Summary
A donee challenged a decree granting a coparcener partition and invalidating his father’s gift of ancestral property to a person outside the family. The Court held that Article 109’s twelve-year period, running from the donee’s possession, governed the challenge rather than Article 58’s general declaration period. The suit was timely. Love and affection for a person brought up by the donor did not make this gift a permissible pious-purpose disposition. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether Article 109 or the general declaration limitation period governed the son’s challenge.
- Whether the gift to a non-member out of love and affection was justified as a pious-purpose disposition.
Provisions considered
- Articles 58 and 109, Limitation Act, 1963The specific ancestral-alienation article displaced the general declaration article; twelve years ran from the alienee taking possession. (¶ 7-10)
Held
- Article 109 applied because the Mitakshara-governed son challenged his father’s alienation of ancestral property and the alienee had taken possession. Alienation included a gift. The specific provision prevailed over Article 58. (¶ 7-9)
- Possession was taken on registration on 22 March 1980 and the suit was filed on 11 October 1991. It was within the twelve-year period. (¶ 10)
- The property’s joint-family character and the donee’s status outside the family were admitted, and the plaintiff had not consented. The manager did not possess an unrestricted power to dispose of that property. (¶ 11-12)
- The stated affection for a donee brought up by the donor did not turn this ancestral-property gift into a charitable or religious pious-purpose disposition. Applying the cited Hindu-law principles, the decree declaring the gift invalid was upheld. This did not concern unrestricted disposal of self-acquired property. (¶ 13-16)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The decree invalidating the gift and granting the plaintiff a one-third share remained undisturbed. No order as to costs.