J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the C.P.C.') is at the instance of the original defendants and is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th June 2018 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal N0.67 of 2015 arising from the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, dated 2nd July 2015 in the Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2012 filed by the respondents herein original plaintiffs for partition, declaration and injunction with regard to the suit properties.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein shall be referred to as the 'original defendants' and the respondents herein shall be referred to as the 'original plaintiffs'.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2012 in the Court of the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat for partition, declaration and permanent injunction.. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendants and the defendants are the brothers of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father namely Balubhai Bhanabhai was the owner of in all seven immovable properties described in para 3 of the plaint. Balubhai Bhanabhai passed away intestate on 23rd January 1985. His wife namely Paniben passed away intestate on 25th November 1985. The suit properties had been purchased by late Balubhai Bhanabhai from his own funds, and in such circumstances, after the demise of Balubhai and his wife, the plaintiffs by way of succession, have the right, title and interest in the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs, they have 1/8th share in the properties in question.

4. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and contested the suit by filing their written statements vide Exhibits : 21 and 24 respectively. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs, being the daughters of late Balubhai Bhanabhai, cannot claim any share in the suit properties. It is also the case of the defendants that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. It is their case that married sisters cannot claim any right, title and interest over the properties in question. In such circumstances, the defendants prayed before the Trial Court to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court having regard to the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues vide Exhibit : 37:

"(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs and defendants are lineal descendants of late Balubhai Bhanabhai Patel as averred in para

(2) of the plaint?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that properties described under para (3) of the plaint are self acquired properties of deceased Balubhai Bhanabhai Patel?

(3) Whether plaintiffs prove that properties described under para (3) of the plaint were exclusively owned and possessed by deceased Balubhai Bhanabhai Patel?

(4) Whether defendants prove that as a lineal descendants plaintiffs have undivided share in the properties of deceased Balubhai Bhanabhai Patel?

(5) Whether plaintiffs prove that deceased Balubhai Bhanabhai Patel was having four sons and four daughters and they have undivided 1/8th share?

(6) Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendants have legal right and share in the lands of Vesu?

(7) Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendants had sold the old S. No.69/1, new S.No.4/1 admeasuring 3-02-00 H-Are-sq.mtrs. of mouje : Rundh without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs?

(8) Whether defendants prove that indirectly plaintiffs and their ancestor had accepted that they do not have right, title and interest in the suit property?

(9) Whether defendants prove that, they are cultivating the suit land and maintenance of their family solely depending upon the same?

(10) Whether defendants prove that suit of the plaintiffs is barred by estoppel?

(11) Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants have denied at the time