JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decreed passed on 13.08.2001 by District Judge, Raisen in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/2001 whereby the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Gauharganj in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2000.

2. This appeal has been admitted by this Court on 17.04.2002 on the following substantial question of law: -

"Whether the appellate Court erred in holding that the suit is within time while the suit was barred by time because plaintiff had demanded her share 20 years before filing of the suit and it was denied:

3. To answer the substantial question of law framed by this Court, the facts in brief are taken note of that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession for the land situated at Kh. No. 9 area measuring 3.09 acres, Kh. No. 10 area measuring 0.87 acre and Kh. No. 12 area measuring 5.60 acres, total area being 9.56 acres of village Divatiya, Tehsil Gauharganj, District Raisen. The plaintiff has claimed that out of the land described hereinabove, she be declared owner of 1/3rd of the land and decree of possession be also passed in her fafvour. Admittedly the land in dispute was owned by Neekaram, the father of the plaintiff. Neekaram died leaving behind his wife, two sons namely Phool Singh and Hari Prasad and plaintiff namely Prem Bai, the daughter. Phool Singh also died leaving behind his wife Kamla Bai, son Mahesh Kumar and daughter Ombati Bai. The mother of the plaintiff also died and thereafter defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the present appellants, and respondent No. 2 herein were in joint possession of the property and were looking after the same. After the death of Neekaram, the suit property had to be recorded in the name of his wife and sons Phool Singh and Hari Prasad and daughter Prem Bai (Plaintiff), but Plaintiff/respondent No.1 was never informed that her name was not recorded in the revenue record as joint owner of the property in dispute. As per the plaintiff, her name got recorded in the share of her mother whereas her name had to be recorded jointly in the property in dispute, which was left by Neekaram in which the plaintiff had also equal share as that of defendants. As alleged by the plaintiff, in collusion with the revenue officials, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 got their name mutated in the revenue record in respect of half of the portion of the suit land whereas she was also entitled to get 1/3rd share in the suit land and she should have been given 3.18 acres of land. As per the plaintiff, when she obtained copy of Khasra on 13.07.1997 then only she came to know that she is in possession of one acre of land whereas she was entitled to get 3.18 acres of land and, therefore, she filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of her share, which she was claiming in the plaint. By and large, the claim of the plaintiff was that after the death of Neekaram, defendant Nos. 1 and 4 and the plaintiff also had an equal share in the suit property, therefore, she should be granted possession of 02 acres of land from defendant No. 4 and possession be also delivered to her.

4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement in which they contested the claim of the plaintiff. It was also pointed out that Janki Bai, the mother of the plaintiff, died somewhere in the year 1977. During here lifetime, there was a partition and half of the suit land was allotted to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and rest half of the land was allotted to defendant No. 4. It is also stated in the written statement that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit land since last 25 years. It is further stated that since 1969-70 the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is recorded in the revenue record in respect of 4.78 acres of land and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred.

5. In view of the stand taken by the parties in the