R.S. Dalvi, J.

1. Preliminary issue of limitation has been framed thus :

(1) Whether the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation.

2. It is required to be decided under Section 9A of the CPC. Both counsel state that the parties do not desire to lead any evidence and the issue be decided upon the pleadings.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for an undivided 1/5th share right, title and interest in the suit property claimed by him. The plaintiff claims as one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Damodardas and also as a co -owner with defendant Nos. 1 to 4 having an undivided share right, title and interest in the suit property. The suit property consists of a tenanted building with a temple on a ground floor called Hanuman Temple. The suit is for partition of the property by metes and bounds as also for administration of the estate of the deceased father.

4. The plaintiff has averred in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the suit property was originally owned and managed by the lineal ascendants of the plaintiff since the time of his great great grandfather one Mohandasji who was the Mahant of the temple. The plaintiff has claimed his lineage through Kuvarbai, the wife of Mohandasji, her adopted son Dharamdasji, the plaintiffs great grandfather who was bequeathed the suit property and upon the death of the Dharamdasji to his son Ramdas who was his grandfather. The plaintiff has claimed that thereafter the property was managed by the wife of Ramdas, Ratanbai, who is the plaintiffs grandmother after which the plaintiff's deceased father came to be the owner and manager of the suit property and the Mahant of the temple therein. These averments are accepted by the defendants as true.

5. The suit property is, therefore, not the self acquired property of the plaintiff's father. It was his ancestral property. In any event the property became ancestral in the hands of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 upon the death of their father, Damodardas. The property register card also shows the property formerly belonging to Ramdas and then to Damodardas and then sought to be made out in the name of defendant No. 1.

6. In paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff has averred about the death of his father on 14th September, 2002 upon which the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as heirs and legal representatives each got an undivided 1/5th interest in the suit property though it is claimed to be ancestral property.

7. A reading of the entire plaint also shows that the plaintiff claims 1/5th share right, title and interest as an undivided interest, but upon the death of his father. Though defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are shown to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Damodardas, the property is stated to be ancestral or joint family property which is shown to have devolved upon them as co -owners. The plaintiff would contend that he is a co -owner and a suit by such co -owner for partition can be filed at any time.

8. The plaintiff has shown how the property has been managed for a number of years with regard to the temple. The plaintiff has shown how the eldest son is the Mahant of the temple which is as per the rule of primogeniture.

9. The plaintiff has claimed in paragraph 9 of the plaint that in April, 2014 he came to learn from a random search that defendant no. 1 is alone entered as owner of the suit property to the exclusion of the other heirs and legal representatives of his deceased father who are siblings. The fact that it is so shown is not denied. Defendant No. 1 has accepted that that was shown by mistake. He has sought to make amends. He has executed an indemnity in that behalf which he claims cancelled the entry. In view of the admission, the knowledge acquired by the plaintiff in April, 2014 about that fact becomes inconsequential.

10. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff should have led evidence about his search and the consequent knowledge and would require to be cross examined. It