JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2018, whereby the suit filed by the sisters of the appellant seeking partition in respect of a property held by their brother Premlal and Mother Janki Bai was decreed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the parties are governed by the Hindu Law of Mitakshara School, holding ancestral property situated at village Sivani, Tehsil Champa. The genealogical tree of the parties are shown hereunder:

4. The suit was filed by four sisters namely Laxmin Bai, Nirmala Bai, Ganeshi Bai and Premlata Bai against their brother-Premlal and mother-Janki Bai (since deceased). The undisputed facts are that the suit property was recorded in the name of Sukhrunarayan, who had two sons namely Manharan and Dilharan. Dilharan was married to Janki Bai and out of said wedlock, plaintiffs (sisters) and the defendant No. 1 (son) were born. As per parties, a partition took place in between two brothers wherein Manharan got 17.01 acres of land and legal heirs of Dilharan got the property to the extent of 9.98 acres. According to the plaintiffs, thereafter an oral partition took place in between brother, sisters and mother and though the partition took place and the sisters were married and residing at their matrimonial homes, yet on their behalf Premlal was carrying on agriculture over the land befallen to their share and used to share the profit. It is pleaded that all of a sudden, in 2018, parting with the share of proceeds of crop was stopped and dispute started regarding claim of property. Subsequently, suit was filed by four sisters claiming partition and possession of property against their brother namely Premlal and mother namely Jankibai, who died during the pendency of the proceeding.

5. The case of the defendant Premlal was that in the year 1995, when the partition took place in between Manharan and the descendants of Dilharan i.e. the parties to the suit (plaintiffs), all the sisters had relinquished their right. Consequently, the names of only Premlal and mother JankiBai were recorded in respect of agricultural land. It was further stated that by relinquishment of their right in 1995, exclusive names of Premlal and Janki Bai were recorded in the Revenue Records and the suit for partition was filed much after in the year 2018, therefore, plaintiffs claim would be barred under the law of limitation.

6. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts and evidence decreed the suit in favour of the daughters for partition and separate possession. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal is filed by brother against his sisters.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the document exhibited it would show that the partition took place in between Manharan and the descendants of Dilharan in the year 1995 and the plaintiffs were ousted from the possession in 1995 itself. Therefore, the suit when was filed in the year 2018 would be barred under Article 110 of the Limitation Act which purports that a person excluded from joint family property would be barred to claim his/her share if it has not been done within a period of 12 years when the exclusion came to the notice of plaintiffs. He would submit that the documents would show that the plaintiffs were in know of the fact that they are not in possession, therefore, despite the fact such plea has not been taken by virtue of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, the Court can very well adjudicate the issue. He wo