Where defendants executed a release deed along with their father and never challenged it within limitation, can they later claim partition by pleading no knowledge of it?

No. Defendants 2 to 4 had executed the release deed along with their father and had not challenged the same within the period of limitation, so they cannot claim that they had no knowledge of the release deed to seek a claim for partition in their written statement.

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — s.8 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 60(a) — s.6 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XX Rule 12 — Partition — Release deed — Minor's alienation — Limitation — Declaratory relief — Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — s.8 — Release deed by minor's guardian — no declaratory challenge sought — Held: A plaintiff who claims partition on the footing that a release deed executed on her behalf during minority is non-est cannot obtain that relief without praying for a declaration that the release deed is null and void and not binding on her; a bare denial of the deed's validity, raised only as a defence while the executant father is alive and examined as a witness, does not substitute for a declaratory prayer. (¶43, 44) Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 60(a) — Challenge to release deed by erstwhile minor — three-year period from majority — Held further: Where defendants who executed a release deed along with their father never challenged its execution within the period of limitation, they cannot resile from it by pleading want of knowledge, and their claim for partition raised through a written statement must fail on that ground alone. (¶9, 44) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Partition suit — Declaratory relief a precondition — Effect of a subsisting mortgage decree and sale deed — Held further: A suit for partition cannot be decreed while ignoring the existence of a release deed, a mortgage decree, and a subsequent sale deed under which title is claimed by contesting parties, unless those documents are first assailed by way of declaratory relief; the first substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and the question of limitation is rendered academic. (¶45) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — s.8 — Validity of release deed — question left undecided for want of challenge — Held further: Since no relief challenging the release deed had been sought on any ground, the question whether the deed offends Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for want of prior court permission need not be examined; both the second appeal and the connected first appeal, along with the application for additional evidence, stand dismissed with no order as to costs. (¶46, 49)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Lakshmi Bai v. Rani Bai — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India