1 sa459 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.459 OF 2011 Shrirang Balu Mane & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Rukhamini Balu Mane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.J.Patil for the appellants None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendant nos.3 to 5. In the suit filed by the first respondent, the Trial Court passed a decree for partition and separate possession which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants based on the alleged admission in the evidence of the husband of the first respondent is that ouster of the first respondent-plaintiff from the year 1979 has been admitted and thus the suit was barred by limitation. He submitted that the Courts below and in particular the Appellate Court have completely brushed aside the said admission and have erroneously recorded a finding that the suit was within limitation. 3 I have considered the submissions. The suit was 2 sa459 for partition and separate possession. Perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant shows that the ouster of the first respondent-plaintiff was not at all pleaded. That is the reason why the Trial Court did not frame any issue on the question of bar of limitation. In absence of plea of ouster in the written statement, on the basis of the alleged admission of the husband of first respondent that the plaintiff was not allowed to enter the property from 1979, the Courts below could not have recorded a finding of existence of the ouster. Hence, the bar of limitation was not attracted. 4 Therefore, I find no fault with the impugned Judgments and Decrees. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 Civil application no.1110 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE