JUDGMENT (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.32 of 2014 dated 07.08.2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Hosur in confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.52 of 2004 dated 20.02.2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Hosur. Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.30 of 2014 dated 07.08.2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Hosur in confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.52 of 2004 dated 20.02.2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Hosur.) Common Judgement 1. The two appeal arises from out of the decree in O.S.No.52 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Judge, Hosur. Against the decree, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.32 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur, pending the appeal, she died and her legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4. The second defendant had filed A.S.No.30 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Hosur and pending the said appeal, the second defendant had died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4. 2. The Additional District Judge, Hosur by a common judgment and decree dated 07.08.2021 had allowed the appeal A.S.No.30 of 2014 filed by the second defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.32 of 2014. 3. The facts in brief that are necessary for understanding the issue involved in the appeals are herein below narrated and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.52 of 2004 for a partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. It is her case that the properties belonged to her father Rama Krishnappa, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 were entitled to 1/8th share each in the property and defendants 7 to 11 were jointly entitled to 1/8th share. Likewise, defendants 12 to 14 were jointly entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. After the death of her father, the plaintiff repeatedly requested her share in the family property, but however, the defendants did not pay heed to her request. Likewise, defendants 12 to 14 were jointly entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. After the death of her father, the plaintiff repeatedly requested her share in the family property, but however, the defendants did not pay heed to her request. The defendants were in the habit of sharing some of the rental amounts with reference to some properties to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that she would not be deprived from her right in the property. The defendants however, after the filing of the suit had sold some extents of the suit property to the defendants 15 to 24. The plaintiff would submit that she is permanently residing at Mysore, but however, would visit Hosur quite often and reside at her relative's house. 5. During her last visit, on 10.06.2004, the plaintiff came to learn that the defendants had divided the properties amongst themselves under the registered partition deed, dated 10.12.1980. This deed was entered into between the first defendant-Ammaiammal, R.Narayanan, R.Sreenivasan, and defendants 2, 3, 5 and 7. However, this partition was not made known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter, perused the partition deed and was shocked to learn that no property was allotted to her though she was entitled to 1/8th share in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff on 20.06.2004 had convened a meeting of the family members to demand her share. However, the defendants refused to allot any share. Therefore, left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has come with the suit for partition. 6. The written statement had been filed by the 2nd defendant, in which, he would contend that the suit was not maintainable either in law or on facts. He would contend that the plaintiff had been given a site as gift by their mother. The plaintiff was very much aware about this partition. The 2nd defendant would submit that the plaintiff has sold away the share allotted to her under a sale deed dated 22.01.1986 to one Mangala Gowri. This is described as site No.16 in the Survey No.ie., 181/1. Further, the plaintiff had not included all the family properties because she is very much aware of the fact that the portions of the properties have been sold. This is described as site No.16 in the Survey No.ie., 181/1. Further, the plaintiff had not included all the family properties because she is very much aware of the fact that the portions of the properties have been sold. It is their case that Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was alloted to the share of the 1st defendant by Government by way of a grant and a D card given to her. This property was included in the partition deed and shares were divided and allotted to defendants 1 to 3. The defendant had set out how the various items of property had been dealt with and ultimately had stated that the suit is bad for non joinder since alienees have not been made parties to the proceedings and as regards the residential house, the defendants had pleaded that Section 23 would apply and with reference to the share in the ancestral property, the plaintiff would be entitled to only a 1/45th share. The defendants had also taken the plea that the suit was barred in the light of the suit in O.S.No.57 of 1984. 7. The written statement filed by the defendants 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 is that on 10.12.1990, the first defendant along with her children had effected the partition of all the properties and each branch was allotted separate properties, which they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment. In the above transactions, the 3rd defendant had sold away the portion of the property allotted to him under the registered partition deed i.e., Survey No.1242 of 2002 at Kamandoddi Village. These defendants have also set out various transactions that had taken place in respect of the suit schedule property and they would submit that defendants 12 to 14 have not retained in portion in the suit schedule property and all the alienations have been taken place only with the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is their contention that the plaintiff has no cause of action for the filing of the suit. 8. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record proceeded to partly allowed the suit, in that the suit Item No.1 was to be divided in 8 shares and one said share to be allotted to the plaintiff and preliminary decree for partition was passed. 8. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record proceeded to partly allowed the suit, in that the suit Item No.1 was to be divided in 8 shares and one said share to be allotted to the plaintiff and preliminary decree for partition was passed. The suit was dismissed with reference to Item Nos.2 and 3 as regards defendants 15 to 23 and the suit was adjourned sine-die for partition and separate possession. 9. The plaintiff has challenged that portion of the decree i.e., against them and the 2nd defendant had challenged the portion of the decree, which is against the 2nd defendant. 10. The Lower Appellate Court on considering the evidence on record and had allowed the appeal filed by the 2nd defendant and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff especially setting aside the decree and judgment in O.S.No.52 of 2004. The Court had observed that though the suit Item No.1 property was a separate property of the 1st defendant's mother, in which, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share. However, since the mother had dealt with the same during her life time, nothing was available to be shared amongst the plaintiff and the defendants. Further, as regards Item Nos.2 and 3, the Trial Court had observed that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. 11. Challenging the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 12. The legal representatives of the plaintiff who have been brought on record before the Additional District Judge, Hosur are the appellants herein. 13. The Trial Court had observed that the 4th defendant in the present suit had earlier filed a suit O.S.No.57 of 1984 seeking a partition of the suit schedule property and the suit records have been marked as Ex.B1. The plaintiff has been arrayed as 6th defendant therein. This suit was settled out of the Court and therefore, the suit came to be dismissed. The 1st Item of property was the property granted to the 1st defendant by the Government, for which, the second defendant had produced Ex.B11, patta passbook. This fact has not been refutted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit 1st item of the property is the absolute property of the 1st defendant and she was entitled to deal with the same. The 1st defendant has also sold away the property. Therefore, there was nothing available to partition as regards Item No.1 of the suit property. 14. This fact has not been refutted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit 1st item of the property is the absolute property of the 1st defendant and she was entitled to deal with the same. The 1st defendant has also sold away the property. Therefore, there was nothing available to partition as regards Item No.1 of the suit property. 14. As regards Item No.2 of the property, which is claimed to be ancestral properties through the father Rama Krishnappa. However, no document has been produced to show the title or possession with reference to Item No.3. The plaintiff would claim that it is her father's property, but the 2nd defendant would submit that the house properties comprised in Item Nos.3 and 4 were ancestral properties owned by the paternal grandmother. The plaintiff has also admitted to the existence of ancestral properties at Hosur as P.W.1 and she had admitted that the said property was located near the railway station. The plaintiff would state that she had come to know about the partition that had taken place in the year 1984 under Ex.B8 (23.01.1984) only on 10.06.2004 and has immediately filed the suit. However, a perusal of recitals in Ex.B8 would clearly impute knowledge regarding the partition even as early as in the year 1984, since the 4th defendant had also initiated proceedings for partition in O.S.No.57 of 1984 and the plaintiff was arrayed as 6th defendant, though she had not participated in the proceedings despite being served with the summons. 15. Therefore, considering the fact she has knowledge in the year 1984 itself, the suit filed in the year 2004 with reference to Item Nos.1 to 4 is barred by limitation. I see no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the Courts below. No substantial questions of law are involved in these Second Appeal. 16. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.