: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.672 OF 2008 Taramati Hari Pavashe .. Appellant V/s. Thakibai @ Bhagirathi Sitaram Patil, Decd., Thru’ Chandrakant Sitaram Patil & Ors.. Respondents Mr. P.B. Chavan with Mr. V.M. Bhate for the Appellant. Mr. P.S. Dani for Respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4 and 2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 15 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murud by Judgment dated 22nd April, 2002 in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1999 and by the Principal District Judge, Raigad at Alibag by Judgment dated 30th November, 2006 in Regular Civil Appeal No.129 of 2002. The suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Both the Courts below have found that the suit property was partitioned orally between the plaintiff and : 2 : Balibai i.e. her step mother. The Courts below have also found that due to this oral partition, land bearing Gat No.2A was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, whereas the land bearing Gat No.2B was allotted to Balibai. Balibai then executed a Will under which the defendants claimed title to the land bearing Gat No.2B. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that Article 59 of the Limitation Act would not apply as the plaintiff was neither a beneficiary under the Will nor had she executed the same. It is also contended that Balibai, being a class-II heir of Hari Gourya Pavashe, could not succeed to his property and, therefore, bequeath the same to the defendants. 3. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted. The Courts below have considered the fact that after the oral partition between the plaintiff and Balibai, revenue entries were made and confirmed on 3rd September, 1991. The present suit was filed in : 3 : 1999. On this basis, both the Courts below have held that the suit has been filed after a prolonged delay. Even assuming Article 59 of the Limitation Act does not apply, in any event, plaintiff was aware of the defendants’ claim to the suit property in 1991 itself and, therefore, ought to have filed a suit within three years. 4. Apart from this, the question of considering Balibai as a class-II heir and, therefore, her right to Will the property being restricted also does not arise. The plaintiff had accepted the partition between herself and Balibai, due to which the revenue entries were made in 1991. In these circumstances, in my view, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 5. The Second Appeal is dismissed.