ORDER Some of the heirs of appellant No. 1 are served. There is no conflict of interest between the heirs of appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2. Hence learned Counsel for appellant No. 2 was heard in support of this appeal. 2. In our view no case is made out for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the correct view that Sevantabai being the widow staying in the joint family was in possession of the property in lieu of her claim for maintenance and under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act that right matured in full ownership and therefore, she had become full owner when the sale deed was executed in favour of her son-in-law, defendant No. 1. The sale deed was executed on 24.1.1958 while the appellants as plaintiffs tried to challenge the sale deed after 17 yearsin 1975. Therefore, the suit was clearly time-barred. The observation of the High Court that the question of limitation would have required the matter to be remanded to say a least, is not sustainable for the simple reason that the suit is ex-facie time-barred. That apart, even on merits, the reasoning of the High Court was legal and valid. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. ************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Udhav (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. v. Pandharinath Kishanrao Tak & Anr., 2000(7) Supreme 619 00017 00018