JUDGMENT This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether in absence of any plea regarding ouster and in absence of proof of all ingredients essential to constitute adverse possession, the learned Lower Courts were right in non-suiting the plaintiff? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suit could be dismissed as time-barred? The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession on the ground that the property in dispute is a joint Hindu family property situated at village Lingva, Tehsil Kukshi. The suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the status of the family as a joint Hindu family and found that earlier there was a partition of the property and all the parties are in possession over their respective shares and properties. The trial Court has also found that the partition took place between the parties 20-25 years back and dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal upholding the findings, judgment and decree granted by the trial Court. The appellant preferred this second appeal which was admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and the respondents. The submission of Shri Mehta, learned counsel for appellants is that in the absence of any plea regarding ouster and in absence of proof of all ingredients essential to constitute adverse possession, the lower Courts were not justified in non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff. In the light of the substantial question of law on which this appeal was admitted. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. The plaintiff came with the case that the status of the property was a joint Hindu family property and, therefore, claimed partition and possession. Plaintiff is the son of Gokul and seeking partition from his father's elder brother's grandsons. These grandsons are in possession over the properties within their own rights. The plaintiff PW 1 Ganesh has himself in his statement admitted that he had not seen Gokul and Bhagwan both brothers performing any agricultural operations jointly and he was also not living jointly with Shivji s/o Bhagwan. His father and Shivji were also not residing jointly, they were also living separately and their kitchens were also separate. The plaintiff PW 1 Ganesh has himself in his statement admitted that he had not seen Gokul and Bhagwan both brothers performing any agricultural operations jointly and he was also not living jointly with Shivji s/o Bhagwan. His father and Shivji were also not residing jointly, they were also living separately and their kitchens were also separate. He further admits' that he had not asked any partition from Shivji. The plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to prove the status of the property as joint. After appreciating the evidence of both the parties, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the status of the family was not of joint Hindu family and there was a partition between the coparceners and all the parties are residing separately and enjoying the properties in their possession and from the evidence of PW 1, no case is made out for grant of any decree for partition or for possession. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the status of the property was of joint and there was no family partition. After appreciating the evidence on record, I do not see that the findings are either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. The plaintiff has himself failed to prove by any' evidence the status of the property as joint, or to make out a case for a decree for partition and possession. Therefore, on the basis of evidence, the Courts were justified in non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff. The matter stands concluded by the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for determination by this, Court. Since it was the burden on appellant-plaintiff to prove about the joint status of the family and also that there was no partition earlier and the appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the same, no question arises to examine the case either about the adverse possession of the defendants or that the suit \"as within limitation or not. The question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and no issue on the question of limitation was framed by the trial Court. Therefore, the same cannot be considered in this second appeal also. The question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and no issue on the question of limitation was framed by the trial Court. Therefore, the same cannot be considered in this second appeal also. The finding recorded by the trial Court about the adverse possession over the property possessed by the defendants was irrelevant and unwarranted and the same does not provide any foundation to the appellant to get a decree for partition and possession. Consequently this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A decree be drawn 4P accordingly. Record be returned immediately.