https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279095 In a coparcenary partition suit, limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act runs only when exclusion from joint family property is consciously denied and that denial is brought home to the coparcener; mere lapse of time or exclusion of another family member is insufficient. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff knew of any such exclusion for more than 12 years, so the limitation defence failed. The finding that the plaintiff was the son of the second defendant was a factual one and showed no perversity warranting interference in second appeal. With coparcenary status established and no limitation bar, the plaintiff was entitled to partition and separate possession of a 1/12th share. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Mar 2019 16:12:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279095 In a coparcenary partition suit, limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act runs only when exclusion from joint family property is consciously denied and that denial is brought home to the coparcener; mere lapse of time or exclusion of another family member is insufficient. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff knew of any such exclusion for more than 12 years, so the limitation defence failed. The finding that the plaintiff was the son of the second defendant was a factual one and showed no perversity warranting interference in second appeal. With coparcenary status established and no limitation bar, the plaintiff was entitled to partition and separate possession of a 1/12th share. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279095