Order

The only question in this case is whether the suit filed by the re­spondents was barred by limitation. The relevant facts necessary for that purpose are that the appellant herein was the legitimate son of one Prahalad who in turn was son of Bagru Karan who was the owner of the property. The said Bagru Karan died and was survived by his wife, son Prahalad and daughter Pancha Dangen. Bagru Khan’s widow executed a Will in favour of the daughter Pancha Dangen bequeathing the entire property to her. The latter sold the property on 6.2.1953 to the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs came into possession from that date. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the present appellant alleg­ing that he was an illegitimate son of Prahalad, the son of Bagru Karan and that he had forcibly trespassed in the land in 1971. The Trial Court held that the appellant was a legitimate son of Prahalad. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was void as the sale in favour of the Vendor’s mother was itself void. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. On Second Appeal the High Court remanded the matter for asc