- (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal. It arises out of a suit for partition of a half share in four items of property - a residential house and shares in three villages. The plaintiffs case was that the property in suit belonged to the joint family consisting of the descendants of Girdhari Lal. The following geneological table gives the descendants of Girdhari Lal, who were alive on the date of the suit, and also indicates the relationship between the parties to this litigation : The plaintiffs case was that as the son of Mohan Lal he was entitled to a half share in the properties in dispute and he claimed partition of that share.
(2.) THE defence was that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Mohan Lal; that two of the village properties in dispute were the self -acquired properties of Panna Lal; that the families of Panna Lal and Mohan Lal had separated and there was no longer any joint family; and that the suit was barred by limitation. The Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Mohan Lal; that none of the properties in dispute is the self -acquired property of Panna Lal; and that there was no separation between the branches of Panna Lal and Mohan Lal and their families were still joint. On the question of limitation the Courts below have differed. The trial Court held that the suit was within time; but the lower appellate Court has held that the suit was barred by time as the defendant had acquired title to the properties in dispute by adverse possession for over 12 years.
(3.) THE sole point for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit was barred by limitation. In this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff -appellant it has been contended that the suit was governed by Art. 127, Limitation Act, and not by Art. 144, Limitation Act, as the lower appellate Court seems to have held and that, even if the suit was governed by Art. 144, Limitation Act, the ouster of the plaintiff had not been established and as such the suit was not barred by limitation.;