1 (CAS 1196 of 2004) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL (ST)NO.14039 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1197 OF 2004 Anu Kom Pandu Jagtap since deceased through her heir Vishnu Govind Jagtap ...Appellant Vs. Sopan Maruti Gaikwad since deceased through his LRs. Smt.Yamuna Sopan Gaikwad and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Pravartak Pathak i/b.Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for Appellant Mr.D. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1st July, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondents. 2. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the original Defendants (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiff and the Defendants”). 2 (CAS 1196 of 2004) 3. The Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20.6.1970 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants was not binding on him. It was contended that the signature of the Plaintiff was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. It was contended that the Plaintiff was told that she was executing a will and in fact, her signature was obtained on a sale deed which was registered. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Against the said judgment of decree, the Defendants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation and also held that the said sale deed was binding on the heirs of the Original Plaintiff. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff was an illiterate lady and, therefore, was not aware that the deed which was executed was in fact a sale deed in respect of the suit property. It was contended that when she came to know about the said fraud, at that moment she filed a suit in 1977. It was submitted that the Lower Appellate Court was erred in holding that the suit is not filed within the period of limitation. 5. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant- Plaintiff. It is an admitted position that after the sale 3 (CAS 1196 of 2004) deed was executed in 1970, notice was received by the Plaintiff for making a change in the mutation entry and, thereafter in 1971 the name of the Original Defendant was entered in the record of rights. No action, however, was taken by the Plaintiff till 1977. Period of limitation had, therefore, expired 3 years after 1971. 6. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, rightly held that the suit was barred by law of limitation. No substantial question of law is raised in this Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. 7. Civil Application no.1197 of 2004 does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)