JUDGMENT

1. The only question in this appeal is whether Chiranji Lal declared insolvent, had 1/3rd share in the property items 1 and 3 which was the subject matter before the High Court.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order in Second Appeal No. 4/75 dated February 15, 1980. The Insolvency Court initially declared all the three partners and the partnership firm by name Chiranji Lal Nihal Chand as insolvents. On appeal filed by Nihal Chand and Sarwan Kumar the District Court, by order dated August 29.1955 declared them to be not insolvents and set aside the order of the Insolvent Court. The revision filed in the High Court was dismissed on September 29. 1959. Thus as far as Chiranji Lal is concerned, the order declaring him to be insolvent became final.

3. The Official Receiver, after taking over the estate, filed an application under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Acton August 16, 1966 for a declaration that the insolvent had 1/3rd share in items mentioned in paras 4, 6 and 7 and 2/3rd share in property listed in para 5 of the petition. The Insolvency Court declared that he had got 1/3rd share in some properties and 2/3rd in some others; but on appeal the District Court declared that Chiranji Lal had 1/3rd share in Item No. 317.326 in Division Number 3 in Ludhiana and 1000 sq. yds. in Civil Lines, which the High Court identified as item number 1 and 3 and held that Chiranjil at had 1/3rd shave in those properties. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri E. C. Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellants, who are sons of Nihal Chand contended that the alleged admissions relied on by the High Court are not correct. There is no such admission which was subsequently explained in the evidence and the High Court had not bestowed due care in scrutinising the evidence. He has contended that the petition itself is haired by limitation under Article 120 of Schedule III to the Limitation Act, 1908 which is equivalent to Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which mentions limitation "of six years; but as the application was filed after II years, it is barred by limitation.

5. The first question is whether the application is barred by limitation. It is seen that declaration of insolvency was made on February 22, 1955, when the estate was taken into custody by the Official Receiver after the proceedings became final. He sought a declaration as to which part of the property, the insolvent had in several items of properties. He rightly had taken that step since it was difficult for him to decide as to in which part and to what extent, he was insolvent in joint properties. The insolvent Chiranji Lal claimed in have 1/3rd or 2/3rd share, as the case may be. The limitation therefore, would begin to run when the appellants sought to create cloud over that right selling up their entitlement or title to these properties. It was done after the application under Section 4 was made by the Official Receiver. The High Court has rightly concluded that the cause of action, viz. the right to sue in the present case had accrued to the Official Receiver when some cloud was cast on the title of the Official Receiver claiming 1/3rd share of the insolvent. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge of the High Court rightly concluded that "I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the lespon-dent". Consequently, the suit regarding the property in item Nos. 1 and 3 was held to be within time. We agree with the learned Judge in this conclusion. The creditors stand was that it was joint properly of the three partners and of the partnership firm which was sought to be declared us insolvents. In the proceedings for declaration of insolvency the firm as well as the appellants father and Chiranji Lal and another were declared to be not insolvent, Since Chiranji Lal allowed the declaration to become final and the property was jointly property held by all of them, it would be difficult to deci