In a suit for partition by a purchaser of undivided interest in coparcenary property, the relevant limitation period is 12 years from the date of adverse possession, governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :-

1. Vide order dated 30th March, 2021, the Second Appeal came to be admitted by this Court. The Appeal has been preferred by the original Plaintiff being dissatisfied by the Judgment dated 20th October 2016 passed by the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.175/2015 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12th May, 2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division , Kagal in RCS No.38/2011 resulting in the suit being dismissed as barred by limitation. For sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

2. Property bearing land Gat No 886/2 admeasuring 0.63 Are, pot-kharaba 0.02 Are was the ancestral property of Bhiru Naikwadi. It would be useful to reproduce the geneology so as to have a clear picture of the relationship:

Bhiru Balu Mayappa Anappa Devappa (Defendant No.1) (Defendant No.2)

3. Upon death of Bhiru, the property devolved upon his two sons Balu and Mayappa and upon death of Balu, upon the sons of Balu i.e. Anappa and Devappa - the Defendant Nos 1 and 2. Vide registered sale deed dated 7th August, 1985, executed between Mayappa and the Plaintiff, Mayappa sold his share in Gat No 886/2 to Shankar Bhau Chavre-the Plaintiff, who was stranger to the family. Subsequently by registered sale deed dated 3rd June, 1991, Mayappa sold his share in Gat No 886/2 to the Defendant Nos 1 and 2. On the basis of the sale deed of 3rd June, 1991, the Defendant Nos 1 and 2 mutated their names in the revenue records. RCS No 70/1992 was filed by the Defendant Nos 1 and 2 seeking perpetual injunction against the Plaintiff which came to be dismissed on 7th October, 1999 as against which Appeal No 295 of 2002 was filed by the Defendant Nos 1 and 2 which came to be allowed on 18th February, 2005 restraining the Plaintiff from entering upon the suit property. Against the order of the Appellate Court, the Plaintiff preferred Second Appeal before this Court which came to be rejected on ground of delay as against which the Special Leave Petition preferred in the Apex Court was also rejected on 14th December, 2005.

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

A) PLAINT:

4. Regular Civil Suit No.38/2011 was instituted by the Plaintiff on 2nd March, 2011 seeking relief of declaration of ownership in respect of the suit property being 1/2 share in Gat No.886/2 based on registered Sale Deed dated 7th August 1985 and for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in Gat No 886/2. It was pleaded that 1/2 share in Gut No 886/2 was owned and being cultivated by Mayappa Bhiru Nayakwadi independently. That, the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale Deed dated 7/8/1985 and the Plaintiff was given ownership as well as possession of the suit property. That, after having sold the suit property to the plaintiff, despite not having any right in the suit property and despite being aware of the sale deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff and possession of the Plaintiff, the pre-decessor in title of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 on the basis of forged and fabricated power of attorney got executed a registered sale deed dated 3/6/1991 in their favour. That, the Defendants taking advantage of the fact that the name of the Plaintiff was not mutated in the revenue records, mutated their names in the revenue records. That, with an intention to grab the suit property, the defendants instituted RCS 70/1992 seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 7/10/1999 which was carried in Appeal being Appeal No.295/2002. The Appeal came to be allowed on 18/2/2005 and the present plaintiff was restrained from entering the suit property. That, due to his illness plaintiff could not prefer Appeal in time before this Court and the Application for condonation of delay came to be rejected by this Court in Second Appeal and SLP against the said order was also rejected.

5. It was pleaded that the Mutation Entry No 1488 mutating the names of th