: 1 : sa.170.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.170 OF 2011 Smt.Parshiram Suryawanshi & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Anusaya Sadashiv Khot (Deceased) & ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Appellants Mr.Prashant Kulkarni for the Respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 22, 2011 P.C.: 1. By concurrent finding of facts, both the trial Court and the appellate Court have decreed the partition suit filed by the respondent herein. The trial Court in R.C.S. No.886 of 1999 has held that the respondent is entitled to certain properties as detailed in the judgement as her share of the ancestral property. The appellate Court has confirmed this view. 2. The first contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellants is that the genealogy submitted by the plaintiff i.e. the respondent herein was not correct as the suit filed by a lady claiming to be a part of the joint family has been decreed in respect of the same : 2 : sa.170.2011 properties. That suit according to him has been filed by the plaintiff therein, contending that she had not been impleaded in the suit for partition although she was a member of the same family. According to the learned advocate, the suit has been decreed and the plaintiff in that suit has been held to be a member of the joint family and therefore entitled to a share in the property. The appellant herein has preferred an appeal against that decree. The learned advocate, therefore, submits that there cannot be two decrees in respect of the partition of the same property. 3. There is a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court that the appellants had not seriously opposed the genealogy submitted by the respondent in R.C.S. No.886 of 1989. The appellate Court has observed that the genealogy was in fact admitted by the appellant herein. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the submission of the learned advocate that genealogy is not correct and therefore the suit ought to have been dismissed is not tenable. Apart from this, it appears that the lady who has filed the second suit had filed an application in the present suit for being joined as a party by claiming that she was a part of the same family. The application was dismissed and the appeal from that application was also dismissed. She thereafter filed a separate suit. In view of the fact that the genealogy has been accepted : 3 : sa.170.2011 by both the Courts below by a concurrent finding of fact it must be held that the plaintiffs and the respondents are members of the same family and the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the ancestral property. 4. The second submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that the respondent was married in 1956 and her father, Balu died in 1964. The revenue entries made after his death excluded the name of the plaintiff and therefore it is submitted therefore that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within 12 years of her exclusion from the ancestral property. 5. This submission also cannot be accepted. There is no evidence to prove the plaintiff's ouster from the joint family property and therefore the question of limitation under Article 110 being applicable does not arise as rightly held by both the Courts below. 6. Appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. In view of the above, Civil application No.422 of 2011 also stands dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)