: 1 : sa.654.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.654 OF 2011 Shri Sakharam Govind Chavan .. Appellant V/s. Smt. Shashikala Shivajirao Redekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.D. Thokade for the Appellant Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 22, 2011 P.C.: 1. The two contentions raised by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant in the present appeal are that (i) the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff herself had pleaded that she was no longer residing in the suit property and (ii) there was a previous partition under which the plaintiff was given three acres of land out of Survey No.176. 2. Both these submissions are not tenable. The limitation in case of an ouster would run from the date when the plaintiff was actually ousted from the suit premises. Although she has pleaded in her plaint that she was deserted by her husband and that she was residing with her parents that would not mean that she was ousted from the family : 2 : sa.654.2011 and consequently the joint family property to which she was entitled. Furthermore, there is no pleading on the part of the defendants as to when the plaintiff was ousted from the suit property. The limitation which is of 12 years begins to run from the date of the ouster and without any specific date of the alleged ouster it is not possible to accept the contention regarding limitation. 3. As regards the second aspect, there is neither any pleading nor any proof regarding partition of the suit properties. The three acres of land which was allotted to the plaintiff was in respect of the matrimonial dispute between herself and her husband which cannot lead to the inference that there was a partition of the ancestral property. 4. Appeal dismissed. 5. In view of the above, Civil application Nos.1061 of 2003 and 1166 of 2005 also stand dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)