AI Overview...
-
Limitation Act Art. 110 - This article prescribes a 12-year limitation period for suits by a person excluded from joint family or ancestral property to enforce their right to share or claim exclusion. The limitation period begins when the exclusion becomes known to the claimant. Several cases reaffirm that if a suit is filed after 12 years from the date of knowledge of exclusion, it is barred Gaddam China Dodamma VS Goka Pedda Dodamma - Andhra Pradesh, JASODA MOHANTY VS HARISH CHANDRA MOHANTY - Orissa, S.Gunasundari, W/o late M.Sekar vs S.Dhakchayani, W/o Subramani - Madras, Beharilal S/O Ramlal VS Jagannath S/O Ramlal - Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Basheer through LRs VS Abdul Kareem - Rajasthan, Durgavva Siddaramappa Sudi VS Annapoornavva Hanamantappa Nidagundi - Current Civil Cases, Shanthappa VS Channabasavaiah - Karnataka.
-
Application to Specific Cases - Courts have consistently held that suits for partition or exclusion based on joint family property are barred if not filed within 12 years of the claimant's knowledge of exclusion. For example, in a case where exclusion was known in 1964, a suit filed in 1979 was barred Abdul Basheer through LRs VS Abdul Kareem - Rajasthan. Similarly, suits claiming rights over property transferred or partitioned decades earlier are dismissed as time-barred under Art. 110 Shanthappa VS Channabasavaiah - Karnataka.
-
Scope and Jurisdiction - Art. 110 applies broadly to suits involving the enforcement of rights to share in joint family or ancestral property, including cases involving Hindu succession, partition, and exclusion from property Gaddam China Dodamma VS Goka Pedda Dodamma - Andhra Pradesh, S.Gunasundari, W/o late M.Sekar vs S.Dhakchayani, W/o Subramani - Madras, Durgavva Siddaramappa Sudi VS Annapoornavva Hanamantappa Nidagundi - Current Civil Cases.
-
Limitation and Knowledge - The limitation period begins when the plaintiff becomes aware of their exclusion or right to claim. Delay beyond 12 years after such knowledge results in the suit being barred Abdul Basheer through LRs VS Abdul Kareem - Rajasthan.
-
Exceptions and Specifics - Some cases involve claims related to revenue proceedings or adverse possession, but the core principle remains that the suit must be filed within 12 years of the claimant's awareness of exclusion or right to share; otherwise, it is barred Bibhuti Bhusan Sarcar VS Promoda Sundary Deby - Calcutta, Beharilal S/O Ramlal VS Jagannath S/O Ramlal - Madhya Pradesh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Article 110 of the Limitation Act establishes a clear 12-year limitation period for suits related to exclusion from joint family or ancestral property, starting from when the exclusion or right becomes known to the claimant. Courts have consistently applied this rule, dismissing suits filed after the limitation period as barred. The key factor is the knowledge of exclusion; if the suit is filed beyond 12 years from this date, it is generally considered time-barred.
Search Results for "Limitation Act Art 110"
2005 0 Supreme(AP) 205 • India - Andhra Pradesh
G.YETHIRAJULU
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, Sec.8 - LIMITATION ACT, Art.110 - Hindu father died intestate in year 1976 without male issues, leaving ... .110 of Limitation Act to enforce a right in share of joint family property - Second appeal, dismissed - Judgment and decree of ... ... Limitation - In present case though plaintiff kept quite without ... ... ( 27 ) UNDER Article 110 of the Limitation ac....
2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1651 • India - Punjab and Haryana
AMIT RAWAL
(A) Limitation Act, 1963, Art.110--Suit for Declaration--Exclusion from joint/ancestral property--Limitation ... to file suit where a person is ousted from ancestral property would be 12 years as per Article 110, thus, Article 58 would not apply ... not confer any title or right of any probate or declaration of Will branding themselves to be legal representatives--Succession Act ... It would be in the fitness of things to extract the provisions of Articles 1....
1997 0 Supreme(Ori) 285 • India - Orissa
R.K.DASH
Defendants claimed that Purna died in 1955 and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ... Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether Purna died in 1955 or 1957? ... Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies when a member of a joint family is excluded from enjoyment of the property to his ......
2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4694 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN
Findings of Court: ... The appeal was dismissed as it confirmed the trial court's decision based on the application of Article 110 ... That apart, Article 110 of the LIMITATION ACT is applicable to all partition suit. The law of limitation not excluded for suit for partition filed by Hindu Female, who claims right after the amendment. ... Her sister Gunasundari, who as the 6th defendant in the suit is before this Court through this appeal contending that the limitation prescribed un....
1939 0 Supreme(Cal) 250 • India - Calcutta
BISWAS
annulment - Revenue Sale - Act 11 of 1859, Section 37 - Limitation Act, Article 110 - Small Cause Court jurisdiction Fact ... Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the nature of the claim, the application of limitation, and the need for a proper trial ... He held that the plaintiffs as purchasers would be entitled to the Pous kiat, presumably on the ground that this kist fell due on the last date of Pous, being the date on which their purchase took effect, but that the claim was barred by limi....
2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 623 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ashok S.Kinagi
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Partition - Principles of Hindu law - No partition has been proven between parties; evidence produced ... He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as per Article 110 of the LIMITATION ACT . He also submits that, the plaintiffs consented to the transfer of property in the name of the husband of defendant No.1. ... She submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and bad for non joinder of necessar....
1991 0 Supreme(MP) 142 • India - Madhya Pradesh
D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 110 - OUSTER FROM JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - KNOWLEDGE OF EXCLUSION - REVENUE PROCEEDINGS - ADVERSE ... Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation. ... It is not disputed that the suit, which was filed in the year 1977, for the purpose of limitation would be governed by Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes twelve years' period of limitation for ....
• India - Current Civil Cases
RAVI MALIMATH, K.SOMASHEKAR
Limitation Act, 1963—Article 110—Partition suit—Limitation—If suit by a person excluded from a joint family property to enforce a ... right to share is filed after twelve years, then suit is not maintainable under Article 110 of Limitation Act—To apply these principles ... of Limitation Act—Besides, possession of one of co-owner is possession of other co-owner under law—As such, plea of adverse possession ... As such, the suit of t....
2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 1231 • India - Rajasthan
VINEET KOTHARI
Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 110 – Limitation of suit by a person excluded from a joint family property to enforce right to share therein ... – Held – In this case the period of limitation is 12 years which begins to run when the exclusion becomes known to plaintiff – The ... were excluded on 14.4.64 and they were fully aware of it – The suit was filed after 15 years on 5.7.79 which was clearly barred by limitation ... of the Limitation Act#H....
2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 17 • India - Karnataka
K.RAMANNA
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 110 Enforcement of right to share limitation - Partition between brothers - Taking place 50 years ... back - Exclusion of another brother - Suit instituted in 1992 - Barred by limitation. ... Thus the lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiffs as barred by limitation and the same does not require ... Article 110 of Limitation Act provides for a period of limitation#HL_....
Filter by Legal Phrase
