IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Second Appeal No. 826 of 2004

Smt. Lalbi Karim Bagwan .. Appellant

V/s.

Shri Allabax Appalal Bagwan .. Respondent

Mr. R.S. Ghadge for the Appellant

Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Respondent

CORAM : P.V. KAKADE, J.

CORAM : P.V. KAKADE, J.

CORAM : P.V. KAKADE, J.

DATED : 24.06.2005

DATED : 24.06.2005

DATED : 24.06.2005

P.C.:-

P.C.:-

P.C.:-

1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal against

the judgment and order passed by the 5th Ad-hoc.

Additional District Judge, Kolhapur dated 5.3.2004,

whereby order of the Lower Court dismissing the Suit of

the Plaintiff came to be confirmed.

2. The Plaintiff had filed Suit for declaration and

permanent injunction against Defendants alleging that the

Defendant had taken advantage of she being an uneducated

pardashin Muslim lady, obtained her thumb impression on

the document of sale of the suit premises and got

executed bogus sale deed on 5.6.1991 and therefore, it

was alleged that the impugned sale deed was illegal and

therefore, was not binding upon the Plaintiff and,

therefore, Suit for declaration came to be filed. The

Defendant challenged the Suit on various grounds

including it was barred by limitation. The Defendant

also denied all the allegations made by the Plaintiff and

prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

The learned Judge adjudicated on the merits and

came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed

to establish the alleged fraud committed by the

Defendant and therefore, non-suited the Plaintiff.

The Trial Judge also came to the conclusion that the

Suit was barred by law of Limitation. The Appeal was

carried to the District Court, Kolhapur. The learned

Additional District Judge after hearing both the

parties inter-alia came to the conclusion that the

Suit was barred by law of Limitation as she had

failed to prove the said allegation made in the Suit,

hence the present Appeal.

3. At the outset, it may be noted that the only question

of law involved in this Appeal round which the entire

controversy revolves is whether the Suit is barred by law

of limitation. The Plaintiff obtained extract of

property register card on 11.6.1993. Name of the

Defendant was entered on 2.6.1993 into the said property

register. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she came

to know for the first time about the said entry on

10.12.1995 when she lodged complaint to the police

station and secondly on 2.12.1995 when she had issued

notice to the Defendant, however the entry on record is

sufficient to establish that the sale deed was executed

on 5.6.1991 and therefore, any declaration which was

sought in that