The court affirmed the principle that the ownership of ancestral property, validity of sale deeds, and possession rights are crucial in determining the outcome of a property dispute.

N.K. Agarwal, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-8-2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/2010 by IX Additional District Judge, (FTC) Bilaspur dismissing Appellant's appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 21-4-2010 passed by the trial Court whereby Plaintiff's suit has been decreed.

Facts of the case in brief are as under:

2. Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for the suit land situated at village Jonki bearing Khasra No. 758/1 area 0.30 Acre against the Appellant as well as Respondents No. 2 to 8. According to the Plaintiff, the suit land was his ancestral property. In the Adhikar Abhilekh 1954-55, it was recorded in the name of his father Nakchhed Sahu. After death of his father Nakchhed Sahu, Plaintiff along with his brothers inherited the suit land and their names were jointly recorded in the revenue records. Pursuant to partition between the Plaintiff and his brothers in the year 1985, the suit land fell in his share and since then he is continuously in its possession. In the year 2007, the Appellant applied for demarcation and at the time of demarcation, the Plaintiff came to know that the suit property has been sold by father of the Respondents No. 2 to 6 and husband of Respondent No. 7 to the Appellant without any right or title over it and the Appellant in connivance with the revenue authorities got his name entered into the revenue records and is threatening the Plaintiff to dispossess him. The Appellant as well as Respondents No. 2 to 7 have filed separate written statement. According to Respondents No. 2 to 7, the suit property was earlier ancestral property of late Ledhva. On partition, the suit property fell in his share. His name was entered into revenue records, was also in its possession, therefore, he sold the suit property to Appellant vide sale deed dated 31-12-1999 by executing registered sale deed in Appellant's favour. The suit land is not Plaintiffs ancestral property nor the Plaintiff is having any interest or possession over it and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. The Appellant in his written statement has stated that on due inquiry it was found by him that the suit land was recorded in the name of late Ledhva in Adhikar Abhilekh, 1954-55 and thereafter it remained in the name of late Ledhva in the revenue records till its purchase by him on 31-12-1999 and he got the land mutated in his name and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned trial court framed issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court based on evidence adduced held, Plaintiff is the owner of the suit land; late Ledhva was not having any right to execute the sale deed in Appellant's favour; the above sale deed is void; the Plaintiff is in its possession and decreed the suit.

5. The first appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and pleadings of the parties and documents filed therein affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant as well as Respondents No. 2 to 7.

6. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, would submit, at the time of purchase of the suit land, the land was recorded in the name of late Ledhva and therefore, the Appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property. This aspect of the matter has not been dealt by both the courts below; the partition deed Ex. P-7 is an unregistered document and it does not confer any title in Plaintiff's favour as the document is inadmissible and this goes to the root of the matter which has been ignored by both the courts below and lastly, the suit is time barred, the plea of limitation can be raised at any stage of proceedings. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nani Bai v. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge AIR 1958 SC 706, B.Y. Narasimha Prasad v. M. Veerappa and Anr. 2008 (5) Supreme 438 and K.G. Shivalingappa v. G.S. Eswarappa and Ors. (20