Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The appeal is against the order of first appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2002 delivered on 31/07/2002 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 22-A/99 passed on 14/01/2000 was reversed. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether finding of the lower appellate Court relating to limitation and adverse possession is perverse?"

2. The appeal is against the order of first appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2002 delivered on 31/07/2002 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 22-A/99 passed on 14/01/2000 was reversed.

3. The appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of Nashima Bibi. Brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by Nashima Bibi, w/o. Ibrahim Khan against his brothers Abdul Rahman and Abdul Majid. This is not in dispute that suit for partition and separate possession was filed by Nashima Bibi against his brothers in respect of property belonging to one Sheikh Iltaf Hussain who died in the year 1948. Suit was filed by Nashima Bibi on 21/06/99 wherein she claimed partition of the property shown in the schedule-A of the plaint. It was stated that the mother of the Nashima Bibi and defendants Abdul Rahman and Abdul Majid namely Julekha Bee died before the suit was filed. So after her death, property has devolved according to the muslim inheritance to the sister (the plaintiff) and the brothers (the defendants). It was further stated the property though was inherited taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff, property was stealthily recorded in the name by the brothers exclusively in their name which came to knowledge subsequently. It was further case of plaintiff that name of brother even if was recorded it can not amount to disclaiming of property by sisters therefore on the said ground partition was claimed.

4. In reply to the plaint allegation the defendant No. 1 accepted plaint averments and admitted the share of the plaintiff/sister. Suit was contested by defendant No. 2 Abdul Majid one of the brother. It was stated that after death of father, plaintiff was under bounden duty to get her name mutated in the revenue records and since she did not get it recorded it would amount to relinquishment of her rights. It was further stated that property was mutually partitioned in between brothers which was not objected by the plaintiff/sister which also goes to show a deemed consent was existing. It was further stated that on 30/08/89 the relinquishment deed was executed by sister which goes to show that she has relinquished her right to the property in question. Defendant further stated that the part of the property was also purchased by the plaintiff sister from the brothers by registered sale deed after payment of consideration which goes to show that plaintiff accepted the fact that mutual partition had been affected and after acceptance and separation of the share the part of the property was purchased by plaintiff on 28/11/87.

5. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Trial court has further held that the defendant has failed to prove the fact that plaintiff has relinquished her right by deed of registered deed, therefore the share of the plaintiff cannot be denied. Further the contention of the defendant that they have acquired the right by way of adverse possession was also negated. Such decree when challenged in the appeal was set aside by the court of Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur. The appellate court has held that cause of action has started from the date of purchase by the plaintiff part of the land i.e. 28/11/87. Reckoning date of cause of action to be 28/11/87, therefore after addition of 12 years for the purpose of it was held that suit limitation has expired on 27/11/98. So since the suit was filed on 21/06/99, therefore suit was held to be barred by time.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the