TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 respectively. Jagdevrao had one son Shankara Rao alias Bajirao who breathed his last on 6.2.1958. His daughter Shakuntalabai died on 1.10.1962. Shakuntalabai died issueless. Anandibai alias Sulochana, sister of Shankara Rao, succeeded to the property. She also died on 20.1.1977. Her property was inherited by the Plaintiffs being her sons and daughters. The suit was filed against Chimasaheb who was also son of Jagdevrao. Chimasaheb died on 18.8.1982. Bapu Saheb, Appellant No. 1 and Vijayantadevi, Appellant No. 2 are his successors. 2. Plaintiffs averred that the property originally belonged to Parbatrao and Jagdevrao. After death of Parbatrao, his son Bapu Saheb succeeded to his property. After death of Jagdevrao, names of his two sons i.e. Chimasaheb and Shankara Rao were mutated. Shankara Rao had only one daughter namely Shakuntalabai who died on 1.10.1962. She was unmarried. Anandabai @ Sulochana succeeded to her property, being sister of her father i.e. daughter of Jagdevrao. Anandibai had filed a civil suit in the year 1963 for declaration of her share in certain other property. The suit was decreed and she was declared owner of 1/2 share. It was held that Anandibai @ Suloch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. 6. It was urged by Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, learned senior Counsel for the Respondents that Article 65(b) is not attracted as Shakuntalabai was the full owner of the property and concurrent findings had been recorded by three courts that the Defendants were not in adverse possession and Plaintiffs were in joint possession on the date of filing of the suit. As the cause of action for earlier suit for declaration of title filed in the year 1963 was different, the Plaintiffs had succeeded to the property left by Anandibai in the year 1977. In the earlier civil suit for declaration of title, it was held that Anandibai had succeeded to the share of Shakuntalabai. Subsequent suit for partition could not be said to be barred by the provisions contained in Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. The earlier suit for declaration of title filed by Anandibai was with respect to a different property. 7. First we advert to the question of limitation as urged on behalf of the Appellants on the strength of the provisions contained in Article 65 Explanation (b) which is extracted under: Article 65: 8. It was submitted on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hindu or Mohammedan female who is full owner of the property as it could not be said that the person became entitled to the property independently of the right of the female but derives right through her. Hence, the suit by such a heir could not be said to be governed by Explanation (b) to Article 65 as held in Hashmat Begam and Anr. (supra), Ghisa Singh (supra), Mohammad Yaqub (supra), Zarif un-nisa and Ors. (supra); and Malkarjun Mahadev Belure v. Amrita Tukaram Dambare and Ors. AIR 1918 Bom. 142 on consideration of provisions of Article 141 of the Limitation Act. 10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jagat Ram v. Varinder Prakash (2006) 4 SCC 482. In the said case Smt. Kirpi was given life interest in the suit property as long as she was alive and after her death the property was to be inherited by her daughter Smt. Manshan. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The first appeal was allowed which was challenged before the High Court in the second appeal and the same was allowed by the High Court. It was held that Kirpi had no right of maintenance. The case was covered by Section 14(2) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies. Thus, there is no scope for the argument that limitation does not run from the date on which the Hindu female died and that it would start running from some other date. In our view, the High Court has rightly held that the suit should have been filed by the Plaintiff within 12 years of the death of the Hindu female, namely Smt. Kirpi, and the same having not been filed within 12 years was barred by limitation. Much was sought to be made of the pending litigation relating to the adoption and gift deed executed in favour of the Defendant. It was contended before us that since the matter was still pending and though the Plaintiff's suit had been decreed on 16.1.1960, the Plaintiff could not have filed the instant suit till such time as the Letters Patent. Appeal was not dismissed by the High Court i.e. till 18.11.1981. The submission has no substance because in the litigation which was pending before the High Court the Plaintiff had not claimed possession of the suit land. The High Court has rightly pointed out that even if the Plaintiff had sought amendment of the pleadings in the pending matter and claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle 65. Hence, the above Explanation will apply to their suit and they would be entitled to a period of 12 years from the widow's death within which to bring the suit as held by Full Bench verdicts in Amar Singh and Ors. v. Sewa Ram and Ors. AIR 1960 Punjab 530, Harak Singh v. Kailash Singh and Anr. AIR 1958 Pat. 581; and Mt. Lukai W/o Katikram and Ors. v. Niranjan Dayaram and Ors. AIR 1958 MP 160. 13. In the instant case possession never became adverse to the Plaintiffs. There is concurrent finding recorded that the Plaintiffs were in joint possession of the disputed land on the date of filing of the suit. The Defendants have taken the plea of ouster and the suit has been filed beyond 12 years of death of Shakuntalabai but they have not been able to prove their adverse possession. On the contrary the finding is that Chimasaheb admitted the title of Anandibai. The finding is that till 1976, Chimasaheb never denied the title of Anandibai. Be that as it may. As adverse possession has not been concurrently found by the three courts and in this case the starting point of limitation would not be the date of death of Shakuntalabai in the year 1962 as she was full owner, as such sui....