JUDGMENT - (1) These three second appeals have been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Shah, as in his opinion they involved a question as to the interpretation of Articles 120 and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act. Appeal No. 1490 of 1955 arises out of suit No. 302 of 1949 filed by Mahadeo Arjun Kokate, to whom I will hereafter refer as the plaintiff. There are six defendants in this suit, who belong to the Gokhale family. Deferndant No. 1 Vishwanath had three brothers Kashinath, Ganesh and Parsram. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Kashinath. Defendant No. 4 Ganesh died during the pendency of the suit and his son Anant has been brought on record in his place. Defendant No. 6 is the widow of Parsram, while defendant No. 5 is Parsrams grandson. The defendants family and their bhaubhands jointly owned several properties, in which they had onefourth share. The defendants bhaubhands sold their 12 as. share to Limayes prior to 1913. In 1903 defendant No. 1 and his brothers seperated from each other. In 1913 Limayes filed a suit for partition of their 12 annas share and obtained a decree. On 8-11-1913 Kashinath, who had a 1/4th share in the properties belonging to the Gokhale family, sold his share to Bapuji Vasudeo Lele. In 1937 Limayes filed suit No. 304 of 1937 against the defendants for partition and separate possession of some properties purchased by him. His claim was denied by the defendants, who contended that the transaction in his favour was a sham and bogus one. No relief was granted to Lele in this suit. Sometime thereafter, Lele leased four pieces of the suit lands, Hissa Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 10 of Survey No. 32 to one Moru Dhondu Jathar and one other survey No. 105/1 to Antu Dhondu Gurav. On 8-1-1948 Lele sold the properties purchased by him from Kashinath to the plaintiff Kokate. The plaintiff then obtained possession of the properties. Defendant No. 1 then filed suit No. 180 of 1948 under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act and obtained possession of the properties in execution of the decree passed in that suit. Thereafter the plaintiff filed suit No. 302 of 1949, out of which appeal No. 1490 arises, for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit lands. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. Their principal contentions were that Lele had not acquired any title to or interest in the suit lands, as the transaction between him and Kashinath was a hollow and sham one, not intended to be acted upon , and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had tailed to prove his or his predecessor Leles title to the suit properties, and also their possession within twelve years before the suit. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge held that the defendants were not entitled to challenge the plaintiffs title to the properties and that the plaintiff was entitled to a partition thereof. It was urged before him that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The learned District Judge, however, held that Article 144 and not art. 120 applied to the suit. He also held that, as the plaintiff had filed the suit within twelve years from the date on which defendants 2 and 3 had filed their written statement in suit No.304 of 1937 denying the plaintiffs title, the suit was in time. He, therefore, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and passed a decree in his favour. against this decree appeal No. 1490 of 1955 has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3.

(2) After Defendant No. 1 obtained possession of the properties in execution of the decree passed in his favour in suit No. 180 of 1948, Jathar and Gurav made application to the Mamlatdar under S. 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act for obtaining possession of the lands. In these applications they contended that they were the tenants of the lands. Their contentions were accepted by the Mamlatdar and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document