https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280997 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. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2019 09:38:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280997 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280997