Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
No specific time limit is prescribed by law for filing a suit for partition. The Limitation Act, 1963, explicitly states that there is no prescribed period for filing such suits, allowing co-sharers or co-owners to seek partition at any time ["Sangili VS Jeyakodi - Madras"] ["Neelmani Singh VS Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 658"] ["Arikrishnan vs Radhamuni - Madras"] ["Neelmani Singh VS Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 658"].
However, certain cases mention a limitation period of 12 years from the date of the cause of action or from the date of exclusion or denial of rights, as in cases where the suit is based on exclusion from joint property or denial of partition rights ["Arikrishnan vs Radhamuni - Madras"]. For example, a suit filed after 12 years from the date of exclusion may be barred, as seen in the case where the suit was filed 14 years after the alleged exclusion ["M. Sheela W/o D. Murali vs R. Visalatchi W/o Raman - Madras"].
In some contexts, the limitation period may be 3 years from the date of knowledge of the cause of action or denial of rights, especially when based on notices or denial of partition ["Arikrishnan vs Radhamuni - Madras"]. For instance, a suit filed after the expiry of three years from the date of partition deed or notice may be barred ["Bijan Kumar Ghosh VS Swapan Mondal - Calcutta"].
Courts have clarified that the period for filing a partition suit is generally not mandatory but directory, and courts can extend time in exceptional cases, although routinely doing so to nullify the fixed period is discouraged ["Amna Khatoon VS Bibi Madina - Jharkhand"].
In pending partition suits, applications under certain sections (such as Section 4 of the Partition Act) are considered to have a cause of action from the institution of the suit itself, and no specific time limit is prescribed for invoking such provisions ["Bijan Kumar Ghosh VS Swapan Mondal - Calcutta"] ["Bijan Kumar Ghosh VS Swapan Mondal - Current Civil Cases"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The essential point is that the law does not set a strict, uniform time limit for filing suits for partition; instead, the limitation period varies depending on the facts of each case, with some cases citing a 12-year period from the date of exclusion or denial, and others emphasizing the absence of any prescribed period. Courts have the discretion to extend time in hard cases, but generally, suits for partition are considered to be maintainable at any time, provided they are filed within a reasonable period after the cause of action arises or rights are denied ["Shekar VS Manikappa - Karnataka"].
Filing a suit for partition of joint property is a common recourse for co-owners in India who wish to divide their shares. But a pressing question arises: what is the time limit for suit for partition? Many assume there's a strict deadline, yet the law offers nuances that can surprise. This blog post breaks down the general principles, key exceptions, and practical considerations under Indian law, drawing from judicial precedents. Note: This is general information, not legal advice—consult a lawyer for your specific case.
In most cases, suits for partition do not have a prescribed period of limitation. Courts have consistently held that partition is an inherent incident of property ownership, with the cause of action continuously recurring. A co-sharer can seek partition at any time they choose to separate their share from the joint holding. Vidya Devi Alias Vidya Vati VS Prem Prakash - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 673Ganga Devi VS Ram Saran - 1972 0 Supreme(SC) 230Sundaran, S/o. Kochan VS Sathyabhama, W/o. Krishnan - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 653Surya Prakash S/o. Late Revanna VS Renuka Devi D/o. Late Revanna - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1426Mariyam Bibi W/o Hafijul Haq VS Kutubuddin S/o Rojid Miya - 2021 0 Supreme(Chh) 195Neelmani Singh VS Tikka Brijinder Singh Bedi - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 658Khirasa S/O. Krishna Kathare VS Shanta Alias Geeta, W/o Janardhansa Sahalagar - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 247
As one ruling states: The legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition is an incident attached to the property and there is always a running cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co-sharers if and when he decides not to keep his share joint with other co-sharers. Vidya Devi Alias Vidya Vati VS Prem Prakash - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 673Ganga Devi VS Ram Saran - 1972 0 Supreme(SC) 230Sundaran, S/o. Kochan VS Sathyabhama, W/o. Krishnan - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 653
This principle stems from the idea that joint ownership persists until partition, and the right to demand it doesn't expire. For instance, under certain land reform acts like the Delhi Land Reforms Act, no limitation applies to suits by co-bhumi-dhars, rendering pleas of adverse possession often untenable. Vidya Devi Alias Vidya Vati VS Prem Prakash - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 673Sundaran, S/o. Kochan VS Sathyabhama, W/o. Krishnan - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 653
While the general rule favors no time bar, exclusion from joint family property triggers Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Here, the limitation period is 12 years from when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. Limitation Act, 1963... Article 110... 12 years is the period prescribed for filing a suit by person who is excluded from a joint family property to enforce a right to a share and the starting point for limitation is when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. Nanjamma VS Akkayamma - 2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 782
This was echoed in cases where plaintiffs failed to prove joint possession or timely action post-exclusion. For example, in a dispute over ancestral properties, the court dismissed a partition claim due to long inaction and lack of evidence of joint possession, upholding the 12-year bar under Article 110. Ramathal vs Chinnasamy Gounder - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 733
Revenue records alone don't confer title or prove exclusion—registered documents of relinquishment are needed, and mere revenue entries are for fiscal purposes only. Preamlal S/o Late Dilharan VS Laxminbai D/o Late Dilharan - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 432
Partition suits often proceed in stages: a preliminary decree declares shares, followed by a final decree dividing the property. Crucially, an application to draw up the final decree isn't time-barred. It's seen as a step in the ongoing suit, not a fresh claim or execution. An application requesting Court to take necessary steps to draw up final decree effecting division in terms of preliminary decree, is neither an application for execution nor an application seeking fresh relief-Application for drawing up of final decree is not subject to any period of limitation. Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna VS Sita Saran Bubna - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1472Vineeta Sharma VS Rakesh Sharma - 2020 4 Supreme 193
However, executing a final decree may attract limitation under Article 136 if not properly stamped. BHOLANATH KARMAKAR VS MADANMOHAN KARMAKAB - 1987 0 Supreme(Cal) 346
An alienee (purchaser of a co-parcener's undivided share) stands differently. Their right isn't continuously recurring like a co-sharer's. Courts reject the 'no limitation' argument, applying Article 144 of the Limitation Act. Limitation starts when the defendant's possession becomes adverse, potentially from the purchase date. M. V. S. Manikayala Rao VS M. Narasimhaswami - 1965 0 Supreme(SC) 200
This equity allows the alienee to seek partition but subjects them to adverse possession defenses.
Defendants may plead adverse possession in partition suits, especially against alienees or long-out-of-possession co-sharers. Yet, where no limitation is prescribed for the suit itself, such pleas may fail. For co-bhumi-dhars under specific acts, adverse possession over 12 years doesn't typically defeat the claim. Vidya Devi Alias Vidya Vati VS Prem Prakash - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 673Sundaran, S/o. Kochan VS Sathyabhama, W/o. Krishnan - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 653
In one case, the absence of a clear adverse possession starting point in the written statement doomed the defense, affirming the partition decree. Preamlal S/o Late Dilharan VS Laxminbai D/o Late Dilharan - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 432
Suits for partition can evolve via amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, especially to clarify ancestral nature or shares. Courts favor amendments to avoid multiplicity of suits, noting no time limit for partition itself. On such touchstone, since the original suit contends prayer for partition and refusing amendment would lead to injustice and multiplicity of litigation and further no time limit is prescribed for filing a suit for partition, therefore... the application deserves to be allowed. Shashi Mahana VS Savita Godal - 2017 Supreme(MP) 827
However, amendments introducing time-barred claims (e.g., challenging old sales under Article 54) may be rejected due to delay. RADHESHYAM MEENA VS MUNEER RAZA - 2017 Supreme(MP) 1034
Early dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 for limitation is rare if facts are disputed—evidence is needed. Heirs And Lrs. Of Deceased Vishvanath Morlidhar vs Heirs And Lrs. Of Deceased Barot Kantibhai Morlidhar - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1788
Partition disputes hinge on facts, so early legal consultation is wise. Stay informed, protect your shares, and resolve jointly held properties efficiently.
References: Judicial documents cited inline represent key precedents. For full texts, refer to legal databases.
#PartitionSuit, #PropertyLawIndia, #LimitationAct
This pecuniary limit is fixed in 2007. (iii) It is required to be noticed that under Sec. 16 of the Act of 1964, the pecuniary limit for the suit before the Senior Civil Judge court commences from Rs.5, 00, 001.00 and there is no upper limit. ... on the upper pecuniary limit. ... An appeal from the stage of filing till the disposal does not involve elaborate timeconsuming procedures like a suit. It is high time to explore the possible solution to expedite the hearing....
Secondly, that such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition. Thirdly, that till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the rest. ... The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Janjgir-Champa, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2018, whereby the suit filed by the sisters of the appellant seeking partition in respect of a property held b....
The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes no time limit for filing a suit for partition by a co-sharer or co-owner. ... the suit schedule properties until the final decree is passed in the partition application. ... However, dismissed the suit as far as prayer of partition and to grant ¼ share in the suit schedule property and aggrieved over the same the plaintiff had preferred the first appeal. ... Now the defendants have preferred this ....
Therefore, it cannot be said from the plaintiff's claim application alone without taking evidence that the plaintiff's claim is barred by time limit. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the plaintiff's claim is liable to be dismissed due to time limit. ... Plaintiffs by way of plaint seek partition of the suit property. Suit for partition is registered from the cause of action, as threat to the share of the plaintiffs claims. Su....
While extending the time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. ... The plaintiff/petitioner has instituted partition suit No. 66 of 2013 wherein after service of summons defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 appeared and filed their written statement but defendant no. 2 to 6 did not appear, inspi....
The father Krishnasamy Gounder, never treated the properties as self acquired properties at any point of time. ... Where a person is excluded from a joint family property, to enforce a right to a share in the said joint family property the limit is 12 years from the date of acknowledgment of exclusion. ... (4) Whether the Suit is bad for Non-Joinder of Necessary parties and Partial Partition? ... Bench held that the conduct of the plaintiff coupled with exclusive possession for considerable length of time#HL_E....
The LIMITATION ACT , 1963 prescribes no time limit for filing a suit for partition by a co-sharer or co-owner. ... The time to file the suit for partition is for the period of 12 years from 20.12.2004 as per Articles 65 and 110 of the LIMITATION ACT and the limitation ends on 19.12.2016. It is seen the suit is filed on 08.06.2015. Hence from this point of view also the suit is within limitation. ... Hence, the question of #HL_ST....
Furthermore, the law has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition is an incident of the property and there is always a cause of action for seeking partition by one of the co-sharers, if he decides not to keep his share joint with the other co-sharers. ... In order to decide the former issue, the Court finds it appropriate to apply the settled principles of law to test the maintainability of the instant suit with respect being barred by limitation and find....
partition suit is pending. ... pre-emption in the pending partition suit. ... and decreed the partition suit being Title Suit no. 25 of 1998 in preliminary form. ... The said section therefore on it's face has it's applicability only in the partition suit and on its terms does not prescribed for any time frame for invoking the provisions thereof.7. ... Thus, an application under section 4 of the said Act if made in....
partition suit. ... the partition suit being Title Suit no. 25 of 1998 in preliminary form. ... The said section therefore on it’s face has it’s applicability only in the partition suit and on its terms does not prescribed for any time frame for invoking the provisions thereof. 7. ... suit is pending and no matter that the application has been made beyond 3 years of the date of preliminary decree, it will still be in tim....
All judgments and decrees passed suit for injunction set aside- Trial Court directed to frame additional issues, if required and to permit parties to lead evidence in respect of amended pleadings- Time-limit of one year fixed for disposal of partition suit between parties.”
(1) Whether the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs’ family to seek partition? (3) Whether the plaintiffs can seek partition against the 2nd defendant? (4) Whether the suit for partition can be maintained by the plaintiffs against the defendants No.2 to 7? (2) To what extent the suit property is available for partition?
On such touchstone, since the original suit contends prayer for partition and refusing amendment would lead to injustice and multiplicity of litigation and further no time limit is prescribed for filing a suit for partition, therefore, it is not barred by limitation, the application deserves to be allowed in toto and is allowed. The impugned order to the extent that it has selectively rejected the application under Order 6 rule 17, CPC is set aside and the application under Order 6 rule 17, CPC is allowed in toto with leave to the defendants to make consequential amendments....
In the case of Pushpa Arora v. Anita Arora, 2012 (1) M.P.L.J. 710 which is cited by learned counsel for the petitioner himself, it is laid down that the application for amendment should not be rejected merely on the ground of delay alone and held that amendment which is barred by the limitation should not be allowed. 7. As per Article 54 of Limitation Act, time limit of suit is for three years.
the suit schedule property available for partition? Whether the first appellate Court was right in reversing the finding of the lower Court that there was no proper evidence to establish that there were other properties belonging to Periapatchaiperumal when the first appellate Court had found factually that there was only property viz.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
