The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court granting share to the 1st respondent by allowing her appeal against the judgment and Decree of the trial Court, dismissing her suit.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under :

The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The appellant is the 1st defendant, whereas respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 2 and 3 respectively in the suit instituted by the 1st respondent claiming her 1/3rd share in the suit property i.e., Sy. No. 5, measuring 2 acres with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. One Siddappa is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. Lingarajamma is the wife of Siddappa and mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. Admittedly, the suit survey number was gifted to Lingarajamma by her father Gurusiddappa and on her death, Siddappa i.e., the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 sold the suit property to the 1st respondent/1st defendant under a registered Sale Deed dated 4-6-1987. The plaintiff was married in the year 1986 and before her marriage, the suit property was joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. After the marriage and before institution of the suit when she came to her parental home, knew about the sale transaction and as she has 1/3rd share in the suit property, claiming that the transaction is not binding on her interest, instituted the suit for declaration that the sale deed is not binding on her interest in the suit property and for partition of her share.

Defendants 2 and 3 did not appear and hence they were placed ex parte.

The 1st defendant has filed his written statement and contended that the suit property was of Lingarajamma, his aunt and on her death, as the father of the plaintiff was to perform the marriage of the plaintiff, it was sold for a valuable consideration. Since from the date of the sale he claims to be in possession of the suit property and contended that the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in it.

On the basis of these pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff was examined herself as P. W. 1 and a witness P. W. 2. The documents Exs. P1 to 4 were marked in their evidence. The 1st defendant was examined as D. W. 1 and a witness D. W. 2 and documents Exs. D1 to 20 were marked in their evidence.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it is barred by limitation. It was of the opinion that Article 60 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the suit and it was not filed within 3 years from the date of attaining the majority, it dismissed the suit on the said ground. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff filed the appeal in R. A. No. 18/2007. The first appellate Court was of the opinion that it is Article 109 of the Limitation Act which is applicable and therefore, it decreed the suit of the appellant of her share, holding that the claim is in time. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court, the 1st defendant is in appeal.

3. At the time of admission, this Court raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:

Whether the suit was governed by Article 60 or Article 109 of the Limitation Act, in the light of the respondent, who was the appellant-plaintiff before the First Appellate Court claiming that the property was Sthridhan property, which had been acquired by her mother, sold by her father during her minority?

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the suit property was gifted to Lingarajamma i.e., the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and on her death, her husband, sons and daughter have succeeded to it. Therefore, he submits that as the suit property is not a joint family property, its sale to the 1st defenda