JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The present Second Appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Before setting out the facts in so far as they are material, it would be necessary to formulate the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

i) In view of the presumption (a) of the correctness of entries contained in the Revenue Records under section 157 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and (b) of jointness in the case of a Hindu Undivided Family, was the First Appellate Court justified and correct in rejecting the suit for partition?

ii) Were the trial Court and the Appellate Court entitled in law to rely upon the judgment in a prior civil suit which was not inter partes, as evidencing the existence of an earlier partition of 1935, having regard to the provisions of section 43 of the Evidence Act ?

iii) Is the suit for partition which was filed by the appellant barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?

2. The dispute in the present case arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the appellant in respect of a 1/3rd share in property which was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document