AYSHABAI Vs. EBRAHIM HAJI JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff seeks in this suit a declaration that she is absolutely entitled to the property both moveable and immoveable left by her grand-father Haji Cassum Sulleman, a Cutchi Memon merchant of Bombay, who died on the 21 of October 1894, and prays that the defendants may be ordered to deliver up possession of the said property to her. She further prays that the defendants may be ordered to account for all the property of Haji Cassum come into their hands and for the rents and income thereof.

(2.) Previous to his death the said Haji Cassum on the 31 of July 1894; made a will whereby he purported to make certain dispositions of his property. He left a widow Fatmabai who died in 1897-a son Haroon who died in October 1896-a grandson Aboo Bakar who died in December 1895. Haroon's widow Hamabai died in August 1899. The plaintiff is a daughter of the testator's son Haroon. She contends that in the events that have happened she is now absolutely and solely entitled to the whole of the property left by her grandfather Cassum Sooleman. Under the will she takes no interest in the estate of the testator. Some of the previsions of the will are said to be invalid as being in favour of unborn children of his grand- son Aboo Bakar. The plaintiff's right to succeed to all the property of Cassutn Sooleman is not disputed or challenged and therefore it is unnecessary to discuss any further the provisions of the will.

(3.) By the will the testator appointed his brother Rahimtulla Sulliman and his grand-nephew Ebrahim Haji Jacob, the first defendant herein, the executors thereof. It is not disputed that Eahimtulla during his life-time managed the property of the testator. He died on the 13 of January 1903. The second defendant is his widow and heir. She has been adjudged a lunatic since the institution of the suit. Her counsel does not dispute her liability to account to the plaintiff in her capacity of heir to her deceased husband. The only question submitted by him to the Court is whether the plaintiff's right to ask for accounts for a period previous to six years from the date of the institution of the suit is not barred by the law of limitation. He admits her liability to account for her husband's management as her heir, from a date beginning with six years previous to the institution of the suit up to the date of the death of her husband. It is not alleged that she was in possession of the testator's estate after her husband's death.