1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD S.A. NO. 96/2005 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. K.D. Bade Patil h/f Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate for appellant. Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, h/f Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondents no.1A to 1E, 2 and 3. [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] Date : 25th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Unsuccessful plaintiff in two courts has questioned the finding. The learned counsel submits that the status of the plaintiff to be son of Kushaba having been accepted, it was not open for the courts to take ladder of law of limitation to discard plaintiff’s share in the joint family property. 2 I find the status of the plaintiff though belatedly is proved to be one of the son of Kushaba having born from second wife, however, the unfortunate part of the plaintiff 2 is, his status as son of Kushaba was questioned in the year 1974 when revenue jurisdiction of mutating property was put in acceleration. In the statement of defendant Chhabu, he denied status of the plaintiff either to be a brother or having any concern with the suit property. Said statement of Chhabu is dated 16/01/1974. It was after this statement, Tahsildar concerned certified mutation No. 2617. Resultantly, name of defendant came to be recorded as legal representative of deceased Kushaba excluding plaintiff. This has happened by year 15/02/1974. Said order as on today is intact. The plaintiff has certainly the knowledge that his status to be son of deceased Kushaba was denied. His right was also challenged by the defendants. Thus, the exclusion was known to the plaintiff in the year 1974. It is sorry state of affairs, plaintiff remained in slumber and woke in the year 1988 to file suit for partition. Both the courts taking recourse to Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not accept plaintiff’s right to stake partition. 3 3 During course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the plaintiff to be still in possession of the portion of agricultural property. The pointed question was asked, is there any stra of evidence to substantiate such possession of the plaintiff, again to the dismal, there is no such exercise to translate plaintiff’s possession over disputed portion of the property. In the result, second appeal sans merit. Appeal rejected. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] tsk/sa96.05