Summary
The partition suit was barred by neither limitation nor Order II Rule 2. Article 65 Explanation (b) did not start limitation at the death of a woman through whom title was inherited as full owner. Adverse possession or ouster was not proved, and the earlier declaration suit rested on a different cause of action concerning other property.
Issues
- Whether Article 65 Explanation (b) barred the heirs’ partition claim.
- Whether omission of this property from the earlier suit attracted Order II Rule 2.
Provisions considered
- Article 65, Explanation (b), Limitation Act, 1963Applies to entitlement independently of a deceased female’s right, not inheritance through her full ownership. (¶ 7–13)
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Requires identity of causes of action, absent here. (¶ 14–16)
Held
- Shakuntalabai was full owner. Her heirs derived rights through her, so the explanation did not deem adverse possession to start at her death. Concurrent findings established joint possession and no proved ouster. (¶ 8–13)
- The earlier declaration suit and the present partition suit had materially different causes. Partition of joint property also rests on a continuing cause; the asserted bar failed. (¶ 14–16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; appellants to pay Rs.25,000 costs to the Supreme Court Bar Association Welfare Trust within two months.