A suit for partition was filed by the respondents herein claiming 1/3rd share in the joint family property.
34 of 2002.
Another application was filed in March 2005 by the appellants herein in terms of Section 54 of the Code whereto also an objection was filed.
7 and of the suit property.
1 and 2 each have 1/3 share in the suit property described in the schedule 7 to the plaint.
The said objections filed by the appellants were rejected.
145 of 1969.
7 is dismissed with companyts.
By the judgment and order dated 27.6.1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indapur on the basis whereof the decree was prepared, 1/3rd share of the plaintiff as well as Defendant Nos.
Plaintiff do recover separate possession of the land excluding the lands which are in the possession of Defendant No.
1 and 2 were declared.
However, as regards partition of the house property, the same was to be effected by a Commissioner to be appointed in the execution proceedings.
7 and of the house property.
A decree was passed therein on or about 27.6.1975, the relevant portion whereof reads as under It is hereby declared that Plaintiff, Defendant No.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants was dismissed for default on or about 7.9.1978.
It was directed that the partition of the land shall be effected by the Collector in the execution proceedings in terms of Section 54 of the Code.
Indisputably, the learned trial judge did number send the decree to the District Collector for partition in terms of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Appellants 2 and 3 filed applications for dismissal thereof, inter alia, on the premise that the same was barred by limitation.
Other parties should bear their own companyts.
The partition of the land shall be effected by the Collector in the execution proceedings, under Section 54 C.P.C. Partition of the house property shall effect by the Commissioner to be appointed in the execution proceedings.
The suit against Defendant No.
6692 of 2007 REPORTABLE B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
The said objection has also been dismissed.
An application for sending the said decree to the Collector was filed before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Indapur on or about 19.12.2002, which was marked as Regular Darkhast No.
The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.
A writ petition preferred thereagainst was also rejected by the Bombay High Court.
In terms of the said decree, the plaintiff was granted liberty to recover separate possession of the land excluding the lands which were in the possession of Defendant No.
Whether an application for initiating a final decree proceedings in terms of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short, the Code would be governed by any provision companytained in the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
7382 of 2005.
