ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT TO HIS SHARE IN THE FAMILY PROPERTY. THE RESPONDENTS SUIT WAS FILED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN 1988. THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE RESPONDENTS SUIT ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT TO A SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AROSE ON THE DEATH OF HIS SURVIVING PARENT, NAMELY, HIS MOTHER WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 1968. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED.

3. THE DISTRICT JUDGE REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT HOLDING THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN FACT WOULD NOT ARISE FROM THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER BUT FROM THE DATE OF HIS OUSTER. THE HIGH COURT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT.

4. IN OUR VIEW, THE CONCLUSION OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE REASONING GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONCLUSION IS FALLACIOUS. THE RESPONDENT HAD COME WITH THE CLEAR CASE THAT HE HAD BEEN OUSTED IN 1968. IF THE REASONING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT AND THE HIGH COURT WERE TO BE ACCEPTED THEN AS THE SUIT HAD BEEN FILED ONLY IN 1988, IT WAS BARRED BY LIMITA