Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in this plaintiff's second appeal states as under:

"Whether both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation by recording a perverse finding ?"

[For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in the instant judgment as were referred in the suit.]

The imperative facts required to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are as under:

"(1.1) Plaint scheduled suit property originally held by two brothers namely Dharmu and late Jagta. Dharmu having share in the suit property sold the land bearing Khasra No. 308/11, area 3.06 acres situated at village Nawagaon, Tahsil Saja, District Durg on 25.5.1968 to plaintiffs for consideration of ` 2,000/- and put them in possession.

(1.2) It is further case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1968-1969 plaintiffs sowed Kodo and thereafter Rahar, which was harvested by defendants and tried to disposes them and, therefore, Civil Suit No. 31-A/70 styled as Sewak Ram & others v. Must. Kunti Bai & another for permanent injunction came to be filed against defendants therein namely Kunti Bai and Ghanaram i.e. widow and son of Jagta. The said civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.8.1974 finding that the scheduled suit property is the joint family property of Dharmu & Jagta and the present plaintiffs are not possession of the suit land.

(1.3) On appeal being filed by the plaintiffs, first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 22-A/1974 (Sewakram & another v. Smt. Kuntibai & another) dismissed the appeal holding that plaintiffs, are the purchaser from the co-parcener, are entitled to enforce their right by suit of partition and suit filed for joint possession much less for injunction is not maintainable. Thereafter, plaintiffs did not take any steps to file the suit as held by first Appellate Court for 15 to 16 years, thereafter, on 21.2.1991 filed the instant suit for declaration of his title and for possession and in alternatively prayed for partition and possession.

(1.4) The trial Court has framed preliminary issues with regard to plea of res judicata and limitation which read as under:--

dzekad fook/kd fu”d”kZ

1- D;k iwoZ flfoy okn dzekad 31v@70] flfoy okn vihy dzekad 22v@74 iwoZ fu.kZ; dk LFkku j[krk gS \ ^^dksbZ fu”d”kZ ugha fn;k tkrk**

2- D;k nkok vof/k ckã gS\ ^^gk¡**

3- D;k okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj mfpr U;k; ‘kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gS \ ^^gk¡**

2. The trial Court, while deciding the preliminary issue by its order dated 18.10.1995, came to the conclusion that instant suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

3. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal there against. The first appellate court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the case, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, leading to filing of this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs, which has been admitted on the substantial question of law formulated as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below holding the suit to be barred by limitation is bad in law as question of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact could not have been decided by trial Court without recording evidence of the parties, and therefore, judgment and decree passed by both the courts below deserve to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, would submit that the Civil Suit as framed and filed is ex facie barred by limitation and, therefore, both the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below with utmost circumspection.

7. The short question