1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1736 OF 2008 Ravikant Parshuram Bhawar........Appellant/Applicant versus Rajaram Savala Jadhav & ors........ Respondents. Mr. Dilip Bodake adv. for the Appellant Mr. M. S. Thorat i/b P.B. Gujjar adv. for the respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 7th JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard both the sides. 2. One Krishna had two sons Mahadeo and Ramchandra. Mahadeo had a son by name Parsharam, who had also two sons by name Ravikant and Prakash. Ravikant is the plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of half portion of the suit land by virtue of a gift deed executed by Ramchandra on 2-6-1981. Ramchandra during his life time has executed sale deed of the suit property initially in favour of the defendant no.3 on 25-2-1983 and thereafter defendant no. 3 executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 2 in the year 1985. It will not be out of place to mention that during the life time of Ramchandra, the father of the plaintiff Parshuram 2 had filed a regular civil suit no.45/83 in the Court of CJSD apprehending the sale of the property at the hands of Ramchandra and thus claimed a right of presumption for purchase of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed. An averment is made in the plaint in the said suit filed in the year 1983 that Ramchandra had executed a gift deed in favour of the two sons of Parshuram by name Ravikant and Prakash gifting half share to each of them. 3. Belatedly in the year 1993 Ravikant instituted the present suit from which the second appeal arises claiming a declaration of ownership of half the share based on gift deed allegedly executed by Ramchandra in the year 1981. A further declaration is sought that the sale deed executed by Ramchandra in favour of the defendant no.3 dated 25-2-1983 is not binding on the plaintiff and a further declaration is also sought that the sale deed executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 in the year 1985 is also not binding on him. The trial court decreed the suit. However, in an appeal preferred by the original defendant nos.1 and 2 the decree has been reversed and by allowing the appeal, the suit stands dismissed. Aggreived by the appellate court's judgment this second appeal has been filed. 4. Few dates that are relevat for cosnideration of the question are that the plaintiff attended majority on 1-7-1990. The suit for declaration has been filed on 7-7-1993. The 3 limitation pescribed for claiming relief of declaration is three years and thus the First Appellate Court has held that the suit is barred by limitation. In the above set of facts the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the first place the limitation would not begin to run during the minority of the plaintiff and, secondly, even after attending majority, limitation would start to run only from the date of knowledge. In the facts of the present case, the alleged gift is said to have been accepted by Parshuram father of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff during his minority and the said knowledge of the plaintiff's father would be attributable to the plaintiff immediately on his attaining majority, if not before. Thus the suit as filed is barred by limitation. No substantial question of law emerges for consideration, The First Appellate Court has also held that the gift deed was not acted upon in as much as no entry in that regard was taken in the revenue record and Ramchandra during his life time has denied the gift in the earlier suit which came to be dismissed. As the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation, no interference with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is called for. The Second Appeal is thus summarily dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.) 4