JUDGMENT :

1. This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal.

2. The second appeal was admitted by this Court on 24/10/2017 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Courts below have erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title and injunction on the point of limitation?

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 2A/2009.

4. Brief facts as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class-II Kasdol claiming declaration of title and possession in share of ancestral property, mainly contending that the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint total Khasra No.10 area measuring about 4.153 hectare land situated at Village-Katgi Tahsil-Kasdol, District-Raipur was recorded in the name of Maheshwar. Maheshwar has three sons, namely Khemchand, Lalsingh and Nekram and they have partitioned the suit property on 27.03.1986 and the name of Khemchand, Lalsingh and Nekram have been recorded in the revenue records. As per the partition, the property which has been inherited to plaintiff’s father Khemchand is described in the plaint as bearing Khasra No.114/3, 1179/1, 1200/1, 1871/3 area measuring 0.377 hectare, 0.583 hectare, 0.059 hectare & 0.081 hectare respectively. The plaintiff’s father expired on 24.07.1990 and after her marriage she was residing with her husband at Baloda, District-Bilaspur. It has been further contended that she is not aware about the proceedings to be taken place for recording of her name after death of her father. It has been further contended that earlier counsel engaged by the plaintiff is not aware about the recording her name in the revenue record of the property, therefore, after 18 years, she moved an application for recording her name which was rejected by revenue Court, Tahsildar, Kasdol by recording its finding that the daughters have no right over the joint property.

5. During pendency of revenue case, it has been brought to the notice of the plaintiff that plaintiff’s father has been given 1.10 Hectare land in the partition and rest of the property has been retained by Lalsingh and Nekram. It has been further contended that as per Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, a daughter is entitled to get property inherited by father, as such, she becomes the land owner of the property which has been received by her father as per the partition. It has been further contended as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, daughter is coparcener and she is entitled to get her share in the property inherited by her father. It has been further contended that in pursuance of the rejection order passed by Tahsildar on 17.12.2008, the defendants have declined possession over the suit property to the plaintiff. This has necessitated the plaintiff to file a civil suit. On the above factual matrix, plaintiff has prayed that the property described in clause 3 of the plaint, she be declared title holder of the property and possession be kindly granted. It has also been prayed that injunction be also granted against the defendants restraining them from interference. She has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties has rejected the application on the count that plaintiff has filed the application at belated stage as it is her responsibility to seek advise from her counsel and she should be in touch with the counsel, therefore, the present suit has been filed after more than one year of rejection of the application by Sub-divisional Officer, which is not a justifiable reason for filing the suit within stipulated time period and accordingly dismissed the suit.

7. Against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2009, the plaintiff has preferred First Appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court by recording the finding that the Sub-Divisional Offic