SUKHMAN Vs. SUBASO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the plaintiff (appellant herein) was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The suit property ad-measuring 10.38 acres of land at Village Ghughra, Tahsil Kailashpur, District Koriya was originally held by one Jairam. Jairam had one daughter namely, Sukhman "the plaintiff herein and one son Dheersai. Defendants No.1 to 6 are daughters of Dheersai and defendant No.7 is said to be the adopted son of Dheersai. The suit property was the self-acquired property of Jairam said to be succeeded jointly by Dheersai "son and the plaintiff herein "daughter, after death of Jairam in the year 1969. The plaintiff filed suit claiming that the suit property being the self-acquired property of her father, she is entitled for half share in the property and the defendants being daughters and son of Dheersai, are also entitled for half share in the property. It was further pleaded that after death of Jairam, Dheersai got his name mutated in the revenue records by order dated 13-12-1974 which is null and void. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that after death of Sawango Bai "wife of Dheersai, in December, 2002, the defendants refused to give share to her, then she decided to file suit on 4-1-2003 in which the defendants filed their written statement and stated that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit property and the suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) The trial Court upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit land and entitled for half share in the suit property and negatived the plea of limitation holding that after death of Dheersai and Sawango Bai, cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to file suit. Questioning that judgment & decree, defendants No.1 to 6 preferred first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in which the first appellate Court set aside the judgment & decree of the trial Court mainly on the ground of limitation holding that the suit is barred by limitation, as the name of Dheersai was exclusively recorded in the revenue records on 13-12-1974 and the plaintiff ought to have filed suit within three years from that date or 12 years from that date, as such, no cause of action had arisen in the year 2002 after death of Sawango Bai in December, 2002, therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in which substantial questions of law have been formulated which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.