Inherited property suit not time-barred. Appeal dismissed, costs awarded.

The Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the property was inherited and not claimed independently. Additionally, the Court found that the suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the causes of action in the previous and current suits were different. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellants were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Supreme Court Bar Association Welfare Trust within two months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

Limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, as Anandibai became entitled to the property upon the death of Shakuntalabai in 1962. They argued that the possession of Chimasaheb became adverse from that date, making the suit filed in 1979 beyond the 12-year limitation period. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that Explanation (b) to Article 65 applies only when the property is claimed independently of the rights of a Hindu or Mohammedan female. In this case, Shakuntalabai was the full owner of the property, and Anandibai inherited the property through her. Therefore, the limitation period did not commence upon Shakuntalabai's death. The Court cited several precedents, including Hashmat Begam and Anr. v. Mazhar Husain and Ors. (1888) ILR 10 All. 343 and Ranbir Singh and Ors. v. Kartar Singh and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1858, to support its decision that the suit was not barred by limitation.

Bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Appellants also argued that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the property in question was not included in the previous suit filed by Anandibai in 1963. The Court found that the earlier suit was based on a different cause of action, specifically a deed from 1957, whereas the current suit was based on the death of Shakuntalabai in 1962 and subsequent inheritance by Anandibai. The Court noted that the cause of action in the previous suit for declaration of title was materially different from the current suit for partition. The Court referenced State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 2 SCC 288 and Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof Mfg. Co. (1997) 1 SCC 99 to emphasize that Order II Rule 2 does not apply when the causes of action are different.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the suit was neither barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, nor by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the Appellants to the Supreme Court Bar Association Welfare Trust within two months.

---