Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned ancestral properties claimed by the appellants as original plaintiffs through the branch of Sadashiv Dhondiba Sasar against the respondents as original defendants from the branch of Sabaji Dhondiba Sasar. The suit filed in 2005 sought partition, separate possession, declaration, and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties. The appellants contended that the properties were ancestral and undivided; that during the minority of Sabaji and Sadashiv, their uncle Nana had executed registered sale deeds in 1927 and 1932 to outsiders, and a gift deed in 1939 to Sabaji's first wife, without legal authority; and that these documents were sham and not binding. The respondents denied the allegations, stating that Sabaji and Sadashiv had resided separately since 1940, that the properties had been transferred by registered documents to third parties, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit in 2011, declaring the plaintiffs entitled to a 1/2 share and holding the sale and gift deeds not binding. On appeal, the District Judge-2, Pune, in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 642 of 2011 and 707 of 2011, allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court decree, holding the suit barred by limitation. The High Court considered whether any substantial question of law arose and found none. The court noted that Sadashiv, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, was about 13-14 years old at the time of the 1927 sale deed and attained majority around 1932-33; under Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908, any challenge to the guardian's transfers was required within three years of attaining majority, i.e., by 1940 at the latest, but no challenge was ever made during Sadashiv's lifetime, which ended on 14.07.1991. Even under the Limitation Act, 1963, the maximum period for challenging alienation was 12 years, and the suit filed in 2005 was after 65-78 years from the earliest documents. The court held that registered documents have knowledge in rem and unless set aside in time, no partition decree could be passed for the properties covered by them. The court also held that the trial court's failure to consider limitation violated Section 3 of the Limitation Act. The argument that cordial family relations prevented partition demand was rejected as not credible. Accordingly, the second appeals were dismissed, and the appellate court's judgment and decree were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Challenge to Guardian Transfer - Minority and Attaining Majority - Limitation Act, 1908, Article 44 - The suit challenged sale deeds of 1927 and 1932 executed by guardian while predecessor Sadashiv was a minor; Sadashiv attained majority around 1932-33, so any challenge under Article 44 ought to have been filed by 1936-37 or at latest by 1940, but no proceeding was filed during Sadashiv's lifetime. Held that the suit filed in 2005 after 65-78 years from the execution of the registered documents was barred by limitation (Paras 17-19). B) Limitation - Registered Documents and Knowledge in Rem - Limitation Act, 1908 and Limitation Act, 1963 - The sale deeds of 1927 and 1932 and gift deed of 1939 were registered documents having an element of knowledge in rem; unless such registered documents are challenged in time and set aside, no partition decree can be passed in respect of the suit properties covered by those documents. Held that the inaction of the predecessor Sadashiv and the plaintiffs for over six decades disentitled the claim for partition (Paras 17-19). C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Duty of Court to Consider Limitation Suo Motu - The trial court failed to consider the aspect of limitation and framed no issue on limitation, which was in the teeth of Section 3 of the Limitation Act; the appellate court correctly considered limitation and set aside the trial court decree. Held that limitation is a jurisdictional aspect that must be considered by the court even if not pleaded (Para 16). D) Family Law - Partition - Effect of Cordial Relationship - The argument that partition was not demanded because the plaintiffs' mother and defendants' mother were real sisters was rejected; the court found that the predecessor Sabaji had two wives and the typical relationship in which parties stood did not justify such long inaction in demanding partition. Held that the plea of cordial family relations was not a valid ground to extend limitation (Para 21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for partition, separate possession, declaration, and injunction filed in 2005 challenging registered sale deeds of 1927 and 1932 and gift deed of 1939 was barred by limitation; whether the trial court erred in not framing an issue of limitation; whether registered documents need to be set aside before a partition decree can be passed.
Final Decision
The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed Second Appeal No.367 of 2025 and Second Appeal No.374 of 2025. The impugned judgments and decrees dated 04.12.2024 passed by District Judge-2, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.642 of 2011 and Regular Civil Appeal No.707 of 2011 were confirmed. The suit was held barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1908
- Article 44
- 1963
- Section 3
- partition
- registered documents
- knowledge in rem
- inaction
- substantial question of law
