Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. – The plaintiff-appellant-appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1992 passed by Sri Kapileshwar Prasad, 10th Additional District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Title Appeal No.14 of 1987/14 of 1988 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Title Suit No.16 of 1983 dated 10.04.1987 passed by Sri Girija Nandan Prasad Azad, 1st Additional Munsif, Sasaram.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid title suit for declaration that the deed of gift no.168 dated 20.01.1978 executed by Gulab @ Gulab Pasi to Kawali Devi with respect to Schedule “ka” and “kha” lands is illegal, forged, inoperative, null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for partition of the suit property. It may be mentioned here that so far partition of the property is concerned, it was abated in view of the provisions of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 on 01.09.1986. Therefore, only the relief remained is with respect to declaration regarding the gift deed of the year 1978.

3. According to the plaintiff, Gulab Pasi had 2 daughters namely Kawali Devi and Sahti Devi. Sahti Devi died in the year 1975 leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole heir. After death of her mother, she was living with grandfather, Gulab Pasi. Gulab Pasi executed a registered deed of Will on 16.06.1975 in her favour regarding the Schedule “ka” land measuring 89.5 decimals. Gulab Pasi died in the year 1980 leaving behind his properties mentioned in Schedule “kha” of the plaint measuring about 1 acre 23.5 decimals. After death of Gulab Pasi, his wife, Etwariya executed and registered deed of gift dated 16.04.1981 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that husband of defendant no.1, Bhola Pasi committing fraud obtained a deed of gift executed instead of Will in the name of Kawali Devi by Gulab Pasi. On the basis of the said deed, Kawali Devi got her name mutated with respect to “ka” and “kha” lands in Mutation Case No.499 of 1977-78. The husband of defendant no.1 requested Gulab Pasi to execute deed of Will for the remaining lands in the name of defendant no.1, Kawali Devi and fraudulently got the gift deed executed by Gulab Pasi. When this fraud came to light of Gulab Pasi, he cancelled the same on 01.02.1978.

4. The defendants contested the suit mainly contending that Gulab Pasi never executed deed of Will on 16.06.1975. He executed the deed of gift in favour of defendant no.1 of 20.01.1978 and on the basis of the gift deed, the defendants came in possession of the gifted property. The plaintiff never came in possession of the property either on the basis of gift or on the basis of Will. The suit is barred by law of limitation. The suit property is not the joint family property.

5. After trial, the trial court recorded a finding that the gift deed is void document and the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 are also void for the reason that no permission was obtained from the consolidation authority. However, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit in its entirety finding that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

6. Appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the Lower Appellate Court. The purchasers filed cross-objection. The Lower Appellate Court recorded the finding that the gift deed is valid and genuine document and reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

7. On 14.12.1992, the following two substantial questions of law were formulated: –

I. Whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court as to the nature of the impugned deed of gift as being valid is in accordance with law?

II. Whether the courts below have committed error of law in holding the suit as barred by limitation?

8. The learned counsel, Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.2 appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial court wrongly held that the suit is barred