Normand, J. - (1.) THE appellant, Parikh Atmaram Maneklal, was the defendant in the main suit which was brought by the respondent, Bai Hira, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmeadabd for a declaration that a document dated June 12, 1926, was not binding on her and for certain consequential reliefs. THE chief question in the appeal is whether these consequential reliefs are time barred by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908 ).
(2.) THE respondent is the widow of the appellant's son Balabhai who died intestate and without issue on February 18, 1926. THE family had been an undivided Hindu family, but on December 81, 1925, a physical partition took place between Balabhai on the one hand and the remaining members of the family on the other. Balabhai had received before his death immoveable and moveable properties valued at Rs. 1,12,000 and there remained certain properties to be physically divided. Among the moveable property received by him were ornaments to the value of Rs. 13,500. THE value of the whole moveable and immoveable property, other than the family property which remained to be divided, left by Balabhai was about Rs. 1,25,000. The respondent, who was Balabhai's heir entitled to succeed to his whole property, went on his death to reside in the appellant's house, and on June 12, 1926, she and the appellant executed the document which she now seeks to set aside. This document provided: (1) That the respondent should have the right of residence during her life in a house, which was part of Balabhai' estate, valued at Rs. 17,000 and that the appellant should repair the house according to the respondent's suggestions at a cost of about Rs. 3,000 and should also pay the insurance premia and the municipal taxes in respect of it; (2) That the respondent was to retain ornaments of the value of Rs. 5,000; (3) That Rs. 12,500 were to be deposited at interest which the respondent was to receive, with liberty to spend Rs. 10,000 of the principal in charity, and that after her death appellant should spend out of the sum then remaining such amount as would make up the Rs. 10,000 to be given to charity, and that he or his heirs and representatives should take the residue; (4) That Rs. 7,500 should be deposited at interest which the respondent was to receive and that the principal should belong to the appellant and his heirs and representatives; (5) That in case of any loss of the sums above mentioned in Clauses (3) and (4) the appellant should give proper maintenance to the respondent; (6) That the appellant and his heirs and representatives were to be the absolute owners of all the other property left by Balabhai and the respondent was to have no claim thereto. It is now agreed after some controversy that a copy of this document was given to the respondent in August, 1926.
(3.) THE respondent's mourning ended in January, 1927, and she then went to reside for two months at Viramgam where her maternal grandfather lived. THEreafter she again resided in the appellant's house until May, 1928, when she took up residence in the house allocated to her by the agreement. THEre is a dispute about the sum spent on the house by the appellant and it is the subject of a cross appeal which will be dealt with hereunder. THE provision in the agreement for the respondent's retention of ornaments worth Rs. 5,000 was not carried out according to its terms and in lieu of the ornaments the respondent was given and accepted gold to the value of Rs. 3,800-7-9 and cash amounting to Rs. l,199-8-3. THE sums provided for in Clauses (3) and (4) of the agreement were deposited at Interest in November, 1927, and the respondent thereafter received the interest accrued on them. In April, 1930, the respondent consulted Mr. Haridas Prabhudas, a solicitor in Bombay, about her rights and on his advice commenced the main suit on October 14, 1930. In her plaint she alleged that the defendant got her to execute the document of June, 12, 1926, while she was in distress and under his protection, influence and control, and without allowing her an opportunity for independent advice or legal aid. She also alleged that when she signed, she did not grasp the import of the document, and that it was only when the document was explained to her that she understood that it purported to be a relinquishment of her rights over the property which she had inherited from her husband.;