P.K. Lohra, J.

Appellant-Plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging judgment and decree dated 8th of February, 2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metro (for short, 'learned First Appellate Court'), whereby the learned First Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 22nd of December, 2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court').

2. In brief facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit for preemption against respondent-defendants stating therein that his grandmother Mooli Devi, executed a Will dated 15.05.1954 with regard to disputed the property in his favour and his brothers Bal Kishan and Daulal. Thereafter, his brother Bal Kishan transferred his part of the property to Mohan Singh and Mohan Singh by a registered sale-deed sold the said property to defendant No.2 Tara Devi. Subsequently, Tara Devi transferred the said property in favour of defendant No.1 Surendra Singh on 14.11.1994. With these averments, appellant prayed for decree of preemption in his favour regarding the suit property as he was having preferential right to purchase the said property. During pendency of the suit, on 15.10.1998, defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.1999, while allowing the application, rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before District Judge, Jodhpur, which was transferred to Addl. District Judge No.1 and Addl. District Judge No.1, vide judgment and decree 25.07.2001, quashed and set aside judgment and decree dated 08.02.1999 and remanded the matter back to learned trial Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

3. Thereafter, on 22.01.2010 defendant No.1 again filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court inter-alia on the ground that suit is barred by law of Limitation and claim for preemption vis-a-vis common wall against an individual, who is not a co-sharer in the property, is not sustainable. Contesting the application of defendant, plaintiff submitted his reply to refute all the averments. The trial Court, after hearing rival parties, vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010, allowed the application and again rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court, while concurring with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court, rejected the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.2018.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the learned Courts below have committed grave and serious error of law in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. It is argued by learned counsel that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and same cannot be decided without recording evidence of rival parties and thus the learned Courts below have committed manifest error of law constituting a substantial question of law. Learned counsel would urge that in the factual background both the impugned judgments are vulnerable. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that plaintiff was co-sharer of the disputed property and thus the impugned and decree passed by the both courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Chopra, appearing on behalf of respondent-defendants, has submitted that as per Section 6(1) of the Rajasathan Preemption Act, 1966 (for short, 'Act') in respect of any immovable property's transfer shall accrue only to a co-sharer in the property and not in the case of boundary wall of the property between two neighbors. It is further argued by learned counsel for the respondent that the suit is barred by limitation as Section 21 of the Act provides that the period of l