ORDER Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Though the High Court may not be correct in putting the onus on the appellant to challenge the Will, the finding regarding limitation, in our considered view, has been correctly considered by the High Court. This is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is in joint possession and ownership. 3. Virtually, it amounts to a decree for partition. In the absence of any material to show that the appellant was indeed in possession and particularly, in view of the admitted fact that the original owner died in the year 1981, and the suit was filed only in the year 2001, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. We have also perused the evidence of PWs-1 and 2. Apart from they being contradictory to each other, the witnesses have clearly deposed that they were never in possession of the property in question. PWs.1 and 2 have also stated that no share has been given in favour of the plaintiff right from the year 1987-1988, while the suit was filed by her only in the year 2001. 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly. 6. Pending applications, if any, shall disposed of.