Partition suit not barred by limitation or Order II Rule 2 where plaintiffs proved joint possession and distinct cause of action.

A partition suit was held not barred by limitation because the deceased female was found to be the absolute owner, the plaintiffs derived title through her, and concurrent findings showed joint possession without proof of ouster or adverse possession; Article 65(b) therefore did not run from her death. The suit was also held not barred by Order II Rule 2 because the earlier suit rested on a different cause of action, involved different property and relief, and the later partition claim arose upon the absolute owner's death and the continuing assertion of rights in joint property. The concurrent decrees in favour of the plaintiffs were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit for partition was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): whether the suit for partition was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The limitation argument depended on treating the deceased female as a limited owner so that the defendant's possession would become adverse on her death. The property holder, however, was found to have been the full owner, and the plaintiffs derived title through her. On the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs were in joint possession and the defendants failed to establish ouster or adverse possession. In such a situation, Article 65(b) did not govern the suit, and limitation could not be computed from the date of the female owner's death.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The earlier suit was based on a different cause of action and related to different property and relief. The present suit for partition arose later upon the death of the absolute owner and the subsequent assertion of rights in the suit property. Since the causes of action were not identical, the bar under Order II Rule 2 did not apply. A suit for partition of joint property also rests on a continuing cause of action.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent decrees in favour of the plaintiffs were sustained, and the appeal failed on both limitation and procedural bar.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaintiff claims through an absolute female owner and joint possession is found, Article 65(b) does not postpone or trigger limitation merely on her death, and a subsequent partition suit is not barred under Order II Rule 2 if it arises from a different cause of action.

---