Parties are brother and sister. They have filed their pleadings. Issues have been framed. It is the contention of the defendant-sister that the plaintiff's suit is barred by the Law of Limitation as seen from the plaint itself. The issue of limitation is to be decided as a preliminary issue under the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is accordingly framed. The Advocates of the parties have been heard upon the issue of limitation.

2. The suit is filed for accounts of the movable properties and assets left by the deceased Jerbai Rustomji Noble (the mother of the parties) and for administration of the same. The suit is also for a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendant are each entitled to half of the movable properties and assets of the deceased. The suit is further for a direction for the division of the properties and assets in equal shares between the plaintiff and the defendant and for the ancillary reliefs of making inquiries and passing orders for the aforesaid purpose.

3. It is clear that the suit is in respect only of movable properties. These properties are stated to be the ones left by the deceased mother of the parties, forming her estate. They be administered by the Court for payment of an equal share to both the parties. The mother expired on 23rd May, 1978. She died intestate.

Her movable estate was to be administered within three years from that date. The plaintiff and the defendant are admittedly the only heirs. They are, therefore, admittedly entitled to half share in the estate, if any, of the mother.

4. Though the factum of the death of the mother and the heirs left by her are admitted as also the shares of the heirs, the estate of the mother is not admitted. The plaintiff-brother has shown the estate of the mother contained in the shares of Companies listed in Exhibits A and B, the Bank Accounts listed in Exhibit-C, the jewelries listed in Exhibit-E and the garas and sarees in Exhibit-F. The defendant has not admitted that constitutes her mother's estate. That would have to be proved by the plaintiff in the suit.

Issues in that regard have been framed.

5. The Court must first consider whether the suit is within limitation, given the factum of the death of the mother in 1978 and the filing of the suit in 1994 for the accounts and administration of only her movable estate.

6. It is the essential claim of the plaintiff, who claims a share in the movable estate, that the shares belonged to the deceased who held them jointly with the defendant-sister and had a "desire" that after her death the plaintiff's name must be included jointly with the defendant in all shares. It is the case of the plaintiff that the mother's desire was carried out and the shares were held by the plaintiff with the defendant in joint names. It is the plaintiff's case that thereafter the defendant took away the shares and raised the false disputes when the plaintiff refused the transfer of the shares by the defendant.

7. It is the case of the defendant that the suit for accounts and administration of the movable estate of the deceased-mother is required to be filed within 3 years of the death of the mother for claiming a half share in her estate under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is the case of the plaintiff that it must be filed within 3 years of the dispute having been raised by the defendant and a claim having been made by her. Upon such a case of the plaintiff, the point of time when the dispute arose and the first claim was made is to be seen.

8. In paragraph 18 of the plaint, it is averred that in 1989-1990, the defendant- sister took away the suitcase along with the shares, documents and records. The averments in paragraph-20 of the plaint show that the defendant-sister made the first claim that she had purchased the shares out of her own monies in July. 1990. The plaintiff has sought to rely upon the correspondence between the parties with regard to that claim. The correspo