Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10409
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA, J
Anandi Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mayku Singh – Respondent
SA 710/2016
Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Advocate General
A suit can be dismissed as time barred if prior partition proceedings are acknowledged by the plaintiff, confirming the absence of a substantial question of law.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Dismissal of suit on grounds of being time barred - The trial court dismissed the suit as time barred, supported by concurrent findings of the appellate court regarding prior partition proceedings and the plaintiff's admission of their occurrence. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Partition - Validity of partition proceedings - The partition was conducted in the presence of the plaintiff, and subsequent farming on the land was done separately as per shares. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The suit was dismissed as time barred, with evidence showing that partition proceedings occurred in 1985, acknowledged by the plaintiff.
Findings of Court:
Both courts found the suit time barred due to prior partition and the plaintiff's admission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was time barred due to prior partition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the concurrent findings of both lower courts, emphasizing the plaintiff's admission regarding the partition.
Result: Second appeal dismissed in limine.
Heard on admission.
2. As per judgment of the trial court the suit has been dismissed on the ground of being time barred. In the first appeal, the appellate court in para-21 of the impugned judgment has clearly held that the partition proceeding before the Revenue Court was held in presence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff - Anandi Singh (PW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that the partition proceedings before the Revenue Court were held in his presence and on that basis his Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika was prepared and as per mutation register the partition was carried out by order dated 24.12.1985. This fact was supported by Ex.D-8 and from the date of partition, the parties are farming on the land separately, as per share provided to them. Thus, both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the suit was time barred and the land was previously partitioned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued the case at length but he has failed to point out material on which he is relying his arguments. Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in the present case, hence the second appeal is dismissed in limine.
4. Let a copy of this order as well as records of the court below be returned back.
5. Record of this appeal is consigned to the record room.
