A and his sons B and C are members of a joint Hindu family. In 1906 A sells one of the joint family properties to D and delivers possession of the same of D. B was major in 1906. C was only of 6 years in 1906. C attained majority in 1918. C brings a suit against the father and D in 1919, i.e., within 3 years of his attaining majority, to set aside the sale. This suit is not barred by limitation. A suit instituted by B in 1919 will be barred because it will be beyond 12 years.
But if an elder son becomes the manager and so capable of giving a discharge the bar against him would bar the younger son also. (Karan Singh v. Mst. Tetar, (1937) 16 Pat. 422 (F.B.), 170 I.C. 362, (1937) A.P. 435).
The cause of action in a suit to set aside the alienation arises when the alienee takes possession of the property. The period of limitation, therefore, begins from the date of taking possession by the alienee. This is a very material date with regard to the son in existence as well as sons not in existence.
A and his son B and C are members of a joint Hindu family. A sells one of the joint family properties to D in 1893 and delivers possession of the property to him. In 1900 another son E is born to A. E brings a suit against D in 1920 to set aside the alienation. The suit is barred because it is brought more than 12 years from the date on which D took possession.