Suits for partition do not have a prescribed period of limitation under the Indian Limitation Act, impacting suits that include both declaration and partition claims.

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants / legal representatives of the plaintiff is as under :
"Whether the first appellate Court is justified in holding that the suit filed by the appellant / plaintiff was barred by limitation, by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record ?"
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

2. The suit property mentioned in Schedule 'A' attached with the plaint is situated at village Kerta, Tahsil Pratappur bearing khasra Nos.907 and 908 area 1.13 and 1.69 and was originally held by Sukhna as recorded in Ex.P2. He had two sons namely Gangu and Mangla. Mangla was original plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are sons of Gangu. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is self - acquired property of his father and grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 3 namely Sukhna. It is case of the plaintiff that on account of mistake committed by the revenue officials during survey settlement, name of Jitu was earlier recorded, which was got corrected pursuant to the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil Suit No.20A / 97, dated 20.7.58 filed by his father Sukhna. It is further case of the plaintiff that his father's name was recorded in revenue records. It is also case of the plaintiff that after death of Sukhna, the plaintiff and his brother Gangu both remained in joint possession over the suit property, but name of Gangu and thereafter defendant Nos.1 to 3 were recorded in revenue records. When the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff revenue case was initiated and thereafter the defendants moved an application for recovery of possession over the suit land before the revenue authorities, in which the plaintiff was noticed, leading to filing of the suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction on 7.1.95 pleading inter alia that the property being father's ancestral property he is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property, for which decree of partition be granted in his favour and consequent to, decree of permanent injunction.

3. Resisting the suit, the defendants filed their written statement stating inter alia that the plaintiff had already been given land in family arrangement and he has left the house and was living separately. The defendants' name have been recorded in revenue records and the plaintiff is not having right, title and interest over the suit property and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court framed as many as six issues including the issue of limitation and decreed the suit holding that no partition has been taken place between the parties and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property and accordingly, granted decree for declaration of title and partition, which was challenged by the defendants by filing first appeal before the first appellate Court under S.96 of the CPC. The first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court solely on the ground of limitation holding that limitation for suit of declaration is 3 years and cause of action has been arisen in the year 1986-87 and the suit as framed and instituted as late as on 7.1.95 is apparently barred by Art.58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1963'). Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, legal representatives of the plaintiff have filed this second under S.100 of the CPC, in which substantial question of law has been formulated, which has been set - out in the opening