JUDGEMENT :- This is a plaintiffs appeal. It arises out of a suit for partition of a half share in four items of property - a residential house and shares in three villages. The plaintiffs case was that the property in suit belonged to the joint family consisting of the descendants of Girdhari Lal. The following geneological table gives the descendants of Girdhari Lal, who were alive on the date of the suit, and also indicates the relationship between the parties to this litigation :

The plaintiffs case was that as the son of Mohan Lal he was entitled to a half share in the properties in dispute and he claimed partition of that share.

2. The defence was that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Mohan Lal; that two of the village properties in dispute were the self-acquired properties of Panna Lal; that the families of Panna Lal and Mohan Lal had separated and there was no longer any joint family; and that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. The Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Mohan Lal; that none of the properties in dispute is the self-acquired property of Panna Lal; and that there was no separation between the branches of Panna Lal and Mohan Lal and their families were still joint. On the question of limitation the Courts below have differed. The trial Court held that the suit was within time; but the lower appellate Court has held that the suit was barred by time as the defendant had acquired title to the properties in dispute by adverse possession for over 12 years.

4. The sole point for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit was barred by limitation. In this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant it has been contended that the suit was governed by Art. 127, Limitation Act, and not by Art. 144, Limitation Act, as the lower appellate Court seems to have held and that, even if the suit was governed by Art. 144, Limitation Act, the ouster of the plaintiff had not been established and as such the suit was not barred by limitation.

5. Learned counsel for the defendants respondents at first unreservedly conceded that the suit was governed by Art. 127, Limitation Act; but subsequently, having come across a full bench decision of this Court in Amme Raham v. Zia Ahmed, 13 All 282, he attempted to argue that Article 127 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable to a suit for partition. He also contended that the Court below had not recorded any clear finding about the existence of any joint family, and for that reason also Articles 127 was inapplicable to the present case. The question whether the family was joint or separate was dealt at some length by the trial Court under issue 8. The trial Court initiated the discussion on the issue by saying that the case for the plaintiff was that the family of Girdhari Lal and his descendants had all along been joint and that Mohan Lal, Pokhpal and Panna Lal died as members of the joint Hindu family; and that the case for the defendants, on the other hand, was that all the sons of Girdhari Lal were separate. The trial Court accepted the plaintiffs case and rejected that of the defendants in other words, the Court found that the family was joint. The lower appellate Court also considered this matter and held that the finding recorded by the trial Court on this point was correct. Thus, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that there was a joint family.

6. The case of Amme Raham (13 All 282) is, however, clearly distinguishable as that was a case by Muhammadans for possession by right of inheritance of shares in the property of their deceased ancestor. The head-note of that case runs as follows :

"The words joint family property in No. 127 of Sch. II, Limitation Act (XV [15] of 1877) mean the property of a joint family.

Hence the period of limitation prescribed by No. 127 of Sch. II, Limitation Act will not apply to a case in which members of a Muhammadan family are suing for possession by right

Click Here to Read the rest of this document