The right to sue for partition is a recurring right, and the cause of action arises on a day-to-day basis. The purchasers from defendant No.1 were not necessary parties to the suit.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred by defendant No.1/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2022 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.79/2019 by the Ist Additional Judge, Jaora to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.41-A/2013 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Jaora, District Ratlam and decreeing the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 for declaration of title to the suit land and for partition of the same.

3. As per plaintiff she and defendant No.1 jointly purchased the suit land bearing survey No.8/4/3Kha area 0.222 hectare by a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1992 for a consideration of Rs.55,000/-. Upon purchase they were jointly recorded over the same in the revenue records. When plaintiff obtained copy of the mutation entry from Patwari on 15.11.2016 she found out that the area of the suit land has been reduced to 0.198 hectare. She made inquiries from defendant No.1 in that regard but did not receive any satisfactory response hence issued a notice to him on 06.03.2007 for partition and delivery of separate possession of her half share in the suit land but the same remained without any response. The defendant No.1 attempted to alienate the entire suit land hence on 29.09.2007 the plaintiff instituted an action for declaration of her half share in the suit land, for partition of the same and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the same.

4. The defendant No.1 contested the plaintiff's claim by filing his written statement submitting inter alia that plaintiff had assured him that if he would sell his share in the suit land then they would distribute the sale proceeds amongst them, that on such assurance he sold 0.240 hectare of land to different persons and delivered 55% of the sale proceeds to plaintiff, that upon sale the suit land was renumbered and mutation was carried out in which plaintiff participated, that plaintiff has always been aware of the sale deeds and reduced area of the suit land ever since 1993-94 hence the same is time barred and that the same has been filed by plaintiff with oblique motives.

5. The trial Court held that plaintiff has proved that she is the owner of half share in the suit land, that the present area of the suit land is 0.198 hectare and that defendant No.1 has not proved that he is the owner of the entire remaining land. However, further recording finding to the effect that the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. purchasers from defendant No.1 and that the same is barred by time, the same was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree aforesaid the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The defendant No.1 also preferred a cross-objection against the findings recorded against him by the trial Court. By the impugned judgment and decree the cross-objection of defendant No.1 has been dismissed whereas appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed and her claim has been decreed for declaration and partition holding that purchasers from defendant No.1 are not necessary parties to the suit and that the same is within time.

7. Learned counsel for defendant No.1/appellant submits that the lower appellate Court has committed a gross error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and in decreeing plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff was well aware of sales by defendant No.1 and consequent alteration in the revenue records since 1993-94 itself but did not seek to challenge the same within the prescribed period of limitation and instituted the claim in the year 2007 which is apparently barred by time. In her cross-examination plaintiff has admitted that she had filed objection Ex.D/1 dated 28.11.2002 in the Tehsil Court in mutation proceedings and had also preferred an