JUDGMENT 1. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2007 for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Courts below have committed the error of law in not taking the correct view of the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988? (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are inconsistent with the evidence on record? (3) Whether the judgment and decree are illegal and perverse so far as the assessment of difference of stamp to be paid in context with the valuation of the suit is concerned?" 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Regular Appeal No.8-A/1998 whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1996 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class I, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.153-A/1995 whereby the suit filed by the appellant for partition and for cancellation of gift-deed dated 8.8.1961 was dismissed, was maintained present appeal has been filed. 3. Undisputed facts of the case are that appellant and respondent are the real brothers and are sons of Madhavlal. The suit property was purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 3.2.1943 by Madhavlal father of appellant and respondent. In the suit it was alleged that since appellant and respondent are the brothers therefore, both of them are having equal rights in the suit property. It was alleged that Madhavlal executed gift deed in favour of the respondent on 8.8.1961 whereby the suit property was gifted by him to the respondent. It was alleged that Madhavlal was having no right to transfer or gift the property of which he was not the owner. It was also alleged that there was another property which was purchased by Madhavlal in his own name vide sale-deed dated 14.12.1943. It was alleged that both the properties were purchased by deceased Madhavlal from the funds of undivided joint Hindu family, therefore, in both the properties, appellant is having equal right. In the suit filed by the appellant it was prayed that a decree for partition be passed and that gift deed dated 8.8.1961 be declared as null and void. The suit was contested by the appellant on various grounds including the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable and be dismissed. It was alleged that the suit filed by the appellant is barred by time. The suit was contested by the appellant on various grounds including the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable and be dismissed. It was alleged that the suit filed by the appellant is barred by time. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit against which appeal was filed which was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Ajay Misra, learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that since the appellant is not party to the gift-deed dated 8.8.1961 therefore, starting point of limitation is from the date of knowledge of appellant when the appellant came to know that father of the appellant has executed gift-deed in favour of the respondent. Apart from this, learned counsel submits that there was no justification on the part of the learned trial Court in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant as the appellant was claiming partition in both the properties out of which one property was purchased in the name of father of the parties. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. 5. Mr. B.I. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. It is submitted that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below found that the appellant is the co-owner of the suit property which was purchased by the father of appellant and respondent vide sale-deed dated 3.2.1943. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view concurrent finding of fact, the judgment passed by the Courts below, appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it appears that to prove the case appellant has filed documents which are marked as EX.P-1 to P-12. EX.P-1 is the notice issued by Municipality, Mandsaur, whereby the appellant was directed to appear on 19th August, 1959 for decision of objections. Ex.P12 is the bill issued by the Municipality, Mandsaur dated 14.9.1957 in the name of appellant for house No.66/2. EX.P-1 is the notice issued by Municipality, Mandsaur, whereby the appellant was directed to appear on 19th August, 1959 for decision of objections. Ex.P12 is the bill issued by the Municipality, Mandsaur dated 14.9.1957 in the name of appellant for house No.66/2. EX.P-3 is also demand notice dated 16.1.1957, EX.P-4 is the bill dated 5.1.1956, EX.P-5 is notice dated 3.10.1956 EX.P-6 is the order dated 1.10.1957 passed by Chief Municipal Officer, Mandsaur whereby objection filed by the appellant regarding payment of house tax was dismissed EX.P-7 to P-9 are the notice issued in the year 1959 and receipts of payment of house tax. EX.P-10 is the notice issued by the appellant on 11.1.1991. EX.P-11 is reply notice dated 18.1.1991. EX.P-12 is special power of attorney given by deceased Madhavlal in favour of appellant. Apart from this documentary evidence, appellant has examined himself as PW 1 while respondent has produced documents EX.D-l to D-2 are house receipts wherein name of the Madhav lal father of the appellant and respondent was shown as the owner of the suit property. EX.D-3 is the rent note dated 3.2.1943 executed by Balibai in favour of Madhavlal. EX.D-4 is the sale-deed dated 3.2.1943 whereby the suit property was sold by one Balibai in favour of the father of appellant and respondent EX.D-4 is the document dated 21.10.1945 whereby the suit property was got redeemed by Madhavlal. EX.D-5 is mortgage deed executed by Madhavlal dated 16.10.1945 whereby suit property was mortgaged by Madhavlal, father of appellant and respondent. EX.D-6 is the agreement executed by Balibai dated 29.10.1945 EX.D-7 is the copy of books of account of the Samvat 2005 i.e. year 1948 which bears no date whereby it was alleged that the appellant got his share in the joint Hindu family. EX.D-8 is the gift-deed executed by Madhavlal, father of the appellant and respondent on 8.8.1961. EX.D-9 is sale-deed in favour of Madhavlal dated 14.12.1943. Rest of the documents are relating to notices issued by municipality, Mandsaur. EX.D-10 is public notice dated 22.8.1961 whereby it was published that suit property was gifted by Madhavlal in favour of his son who is the respondent. It was also made clear that because of gift-deed the appellant was not having any right, title or interest in the suit property. 7. EX.D-10 is public notice dated 22.8.1961 whereby it was published that suit property was gifted by Madhavlal in favour of his son who is the respondent. It was also made clear that because of gift-deed the appellant was not having any right, title or interest in the suit property. 7. Undisputed facts of the case are that the suit property was purchased in the name of appellant and respondent on 3.2.1943 of which map is enclosed alongwith plaint as Annexure-A and property which was purchased in the name of Madhavlal father of appellant and respondent is shown in the map Annexure-B attached with the plaint vide sale-deed dated 14.12.1943. The gift-deed is dated 8.8.1961 whereby Madhavlal gifted both the properties to the respondent and suit is filed on 24.4.1992. The limitation has been taken by the appellant for filing the suit from 18.1.1991 when the reply of the notice of the appellant was given by the respondent which is marked as EX.P-11. For taking into consideration whether the suit flied by the appellant was in time or not, there are some important aspects which are taken into consideration in addition to the grounds which are taken into consideration by this Court, which are as under: (i) EX.D-7 is the document whereby the appellant was given the moveable properties in Samvat 2005 i.e. in the year 1948. (ii) EX.D-10 is the newspaper "Dainik Bhawaj" dated 3.8.1961 published from Mandsaur whereby Madhavlal in his lifetime declared that the suit property has been gifted by him to the respondent. (iii) Execution of gift-deed has been admitted by the appellant himself. (iv) In para 3 of examination-in-chief appellant has admitted that he was in possession of the suit properties upto 1960 and was also paying the house tax of both the houses upto that time. In para 10 of examination-in-chief appellant has stated that he has remained in house upto 1950 and thereafter he has vacated the house which was purchased in his name and also in the name of respondent and also started to live in the tenanted premises, at that relevant time respondent was living at Calcutta but from the year 1961 respondent started to live in that house alongwith his parents. (v) In para 17 of his cross-examination appellant has admitted that since 1961 respondent is paying the house tax. (v) In para 17 of his cross-examination appellant has admitted that since 1961 respondent is paying the house tax. (vi) In para 18 of his cross-examination appellant has admitted that he has taken no action for mutation of his name. He has also admitted that respondent has got his name mutated in the record of Municipality, Mandsaur on the basis of gift-deed. He has admitted that he has not flied objection in that regard. (vii) In para 19 of his cross-examination he had admitted that after the gift-deed name of the appellant was deleted from the record of Municipality. Mandsaur. (viii) In para 2 of examination-in-chief respondent has stated 'that appellant separated after taking his share from their father in the year 1948. He has further stated that he did not claim any right in the suit property. (ix) In para 3 of examination-in-chief respondent has stated that appellant was having the knowledge about the gift-deed right from the date of its execution as appellant was Stamp Vendor. There is no cross-examination by the appellant on this part of the statement of the respondent. 8. As stated above that the gift-deed is dated 8.8.1961 and suit has been filed on 24.4.1992 while the appellant was having knowledge about gift-deed right from beginning, therefore, on the face of it suit was barred by time. So far as property Shawn in the map Annexure-B is concerned, it was in the name of Madholal, therefore, he was having all the rights to gift the same. So far as property shown in the map Annexure-A is concerned. learned Courts below has rightly held that the suit tiled by the appellant is barred by time. No substantial question of law has been framed in that regard. Since learned trial Court found that the suit was barred by time and learned appellate Court up-held the finding recorded by learned trial Court and no substantial question of law has been framed on that account, therefore, there was no necessity to answer any of the substantial question of law framed by this Court. In view of this appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same stands dismissed. C.c. as per rules.