JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that plaintiff and the defendants are sisters i.e. daughters of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa and Deveeramma. The suit schedule properties originally belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa i.e., the father of the plaintiff and defendants and during the lifetime of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and thereafter, he was in possession. The plaintiff and the defendants being his legal heirs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties along with Smt. Deveeramma, the mother of the parties to the suit. Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa being the father, he was the manager of the family, the plaintiff and defendants are the members of the joint family. 3. The plaintiff further contend that Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa died on 11.08.1963 and after his demise, his wife Smt. Deveeramma was looking after the management on the support of Sri Javanappa, the elder brother of her husband. The marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was celebrated out of the income arising from the suit schedule properties, even Smt. Deveeramma also died on 07.02.2005 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant as the LRs of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and Smt. Deveeramma. It is also the contention that suit schedule properties being in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants. As the plaintiff was married to Mahadevappa of Bedarapura Village and she is living in Bedarapura with the assistance of Subbappa, the defendant's husband, the suit schedule properties are managed by the defendant with the assistance of her husband, the crops that over earned from the suit schedule properties was normally given to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has regularly given her share, she was in good terms with the defendant. 4. It is also the contention that defendant's husband Sri Subbappa also passed away about 1½ years ago, after his demise, the agricultural operation is not properly maintained by the defendant. 4. It is also the contention that defendant's husband Sri Subbappa also passed away about 1½ years ago, after his demise, the agricultural operation is not properly maintained by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has spoken with the defendant to divide her share and deliver her share of the properties for her separate possession. The defendant turned a deaf ear and does not show her readiness to divide the suit schedule properties and to the surprise of plaintiff, the late husband of the defendant with a malafide intention to knock off the properties to himself, concocted the RTC getting entry of his name in the relevant column of RTC behind the back of the plaintiff. It is also the contention that the defendant's husband, a poor man from Nagavalli Village and inducted to the family of Channanjappa @ Puttappa as Channanjappa @ Puttappa was unsoundness of mind, being inducted to the family who was also members of the joint family and he was managing the affairs of the alleged sale deeds are sham, colourable and not intended to be acted upon and the same if fraudulent and thus they cannot take away the characteristics of jointness. However the joint family continued under the management of the defendant's husband. It is also the contention that the plaintiff has though put her demands orally for partition and there is no response from the defendant and plaintiff has got issued a legal notice and defendant did not come forward and hence, filed a suit without any other alternative. 5. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties originally belongs to one Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa. On 23.04.1958, he sold item Nos.1 to 3 properties to the husband of defendant’s Sri Subbappa for sale consideration of Rs.600/- through registered sale deed. The suit item No.4 property i.e., vacant site acquired by Sri Subbappa through Government grant. Hence, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit item Nos.1 to 4 property. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant's husband Sri Subbappa. The plaintiff has no manner of right or relationship over the suit schedule properties and hence, not entitled for any relief. Hence, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of suit item Nos.1 to 4 property. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant's husband Sri Subbappa. The plaintiff has no manner of right or relationship over the suit schedule properties and hence, not entitled for any relief. It is also contented that after the purchase of suit schedule properties, Sri Subbappa changed khatha into his name and paying taxes to the revenue authorities. After the demise of Sri Subbappa, the defendant and his children are his legal representatives in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is also contented that at the time of sale of suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties, the plaintiff and defendants were residing at their matrimonial home. After the sale of suit item Nos.1 to 3 property, Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa gave the remaining properties in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff sold the same to third parties. The plaintiff is having full knowledge about the said facts and filed the false case. It is contended that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and hence not entitled for any relief. 6. The defendant No.1(a) filed the written statement and contended that Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa has not died on 25.01.1998 as contended by the plaintiff in paragraph No.4 of his plaint, instead he contended that Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa has died in the year 1963. He further contended that the plaintiff illegally created the documents. 7. The defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c) also filed their written statement contending that originally property belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o.Siddappa. On 23.04.1958, Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa sold suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties to the defendant’s husband Sri Subbappa for sale consideration and similar defence was taken in the written statement that suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant’s husband. 8. On 23.04.1958, Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa sold suit item Nos.1 to 3 properties to the defendant’s husband Sri Subbappa for sale consideration and similar defence was taken in the written statement that suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant’s husband. 8. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and burden is shifted on the plaintiff to prove that herself and defendants constitute Joint Hindu family and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and also in view of the defence of the defendants, framed an issue that whether the defendants prove that suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3 are purchased by her husband Puttappa through registered sale deed dated 23.04.1958 from Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and also whether the defendant prove that her husband purchased suit schedule item No.4 from Government through registered sale deed dated 23.04.1958 and suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court also framed additional issues in view of additional written statement filed by defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c) whether defendant Nos.2(a) to (c) prove that the suit schedule item No.1 of property is purchased by Masanagowda, S/o. Javaregowda from Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa under the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1998 to the extent of 2¼ guntas and whether defendant Nos.2(a) to (c) prove that nature of the schedule item No.1 property to the extent of 2¼ guntas is changed as pleaded in paragraph No.8(d) of written statement. 9. The parties were allowed to lead evidence and the plaintiff examined one witness GPA holder as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P56. The plaintiff also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The defendant No.1(a) examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D46. The defendants also examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3. Defendant No.2 is impleaded in the suit. Subsequently, during the trial, defendant No.2 died and his LRs were brought on record. 10. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and nothing is placed on record to prove the same. Defendant No.2 is impleaded in the suit. Subsequently, during the trial, defendant No.2 died and his LRs were brought on record. 10. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and nothing is placed on record to prove the same. Apart from that, when the property belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, he had sold the properties in the year 1958 itself in favour of husband of defendant No.1 and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ and answered issue Nos.3 to 5 as ‘affirmative’ and comes to the conclusion that sale was made in the year 1958 and as on the date of sale, the plaintiff was aged about 30 years and ought to have challenged the sale within 3 years and the same has not been done and answered issue No.6 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that suit itself is barred by limitation and also answered issue Nos.7 to 9 as ‘negative’ and dismissed the suit. 11. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.24/2020. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that plaintiff/appellant has failed to prove that herself and defendant No.1 continued under Joint Hindu family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of herself and defendant No.1, whether the trial Judge is justified in coming to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of husband of defendant No.1, namely Subbappa, whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint. 12. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered point Nos.1 to 4 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit, since the sale was made in the year 1958 itself and suit was filed in 2008 after a long gap of 50 years and also comes to the conclusion that very suit itself is barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court also discussed Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in paragraph No.17 and also the recent judgment of Apex Court in Vineetha Sharm’s case in paragraph No.18 and taken note of the fact that sale was made in the year 1958 by father of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.600/- and issue of limitation was also discussed in paragraph No.19. Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. 13. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal is that both the Courts are not justified in holding that item No.4 is granted in favour of husband of defendant No.1, when the same is allotted to the paternal uncle of plaintiff and defendants Sri Javanappa which fell to the share of plaintiff’s father in the partition that took place between the brothers. The counsel also would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in holding that item Nos.1 to 3 were sold to husband of defendant No.1 by father of the plaintiff in the year 1958 and the very approach of both the Courts that suit is barred by limitation is also erroneous. The counsel also vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not allotting any share to the plaintiff in suit item No.1 when only portion of it is sold to defendant No.2 and the remaining is still in possession of LRs of defendant and when defendant’s vendor was not having any valid title. Hence, this Court has to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the reasoning of the Trial Court, it is the very specific pleading of the plaintiff while seeking the relief that property belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and plaintiff is the daughter of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sister of the plaintiff. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also the reasoning of the Trial Court, it is the very specific pleading of the plaintiff while seeking the relief that property belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and plaintiff is the daughter of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sister of the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that if any sale deed is made by the father, the same is created behind the back of plaintiff and even change of khatha and documents will not create any right in favour of husband of defendant No.1 and specific defence was taken by the defendant that property was purchased by her husband from Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa in the year 1958 itself i.e., both item Nos.1 to 3 and item No.4 and also there was a sale deed in respect of all the items of the suit schedule properties and defence was also taken that suit is barred by limitation, since sale deed was of the year 1958. 15. The Trial Court having considered the issue of limitation, in paragraph No.32 considered issue No.6 and comes to the conclusion that when the father and mother during the year 1958 and 1968 have sold the property, ought to have challenged the same within 3 years after she attaining majority and moreover, the sale deeds alleged to be executed by her father is 30 years old as on the date of filing of the suit as per Article 110 of Limitation Act. By a person excluded from the joint family property to enforce a right to share the period of limitation is 12 years i.e., when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit schedule property along with defendant No.1. Hence, comes to the conclusion that limitation starts by exclusion and the fact that there are two sale deeds of the year 1958 and 1968 is not in dispute. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that plaintiff was getting the share in the property. Hence, there was no dispute and only after the death of her sister's husband, when they were reluctant to give share, then came to know about the same. When the sale was made in the year 1958, suit was filed in the year 2008 after a long gap of 50 years. Hence, there was no dispute and only after the death of her sister's husband, when they were reluctant to give share, then came to know about the same. When the sale was made in the year 1958, suit was filed in the year 2008 after a long gap of 50 years. Apart from that when the father himself had sold the property in the year 1958 and though it is contented that the same is a sham document and the fact that sale was made in the year 1958 through a registered sale deed and property was sold in favour of her sister's husband and in order to prove the factum that share was given to the plaintiff also, nothing is placed on record. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and plaintiff is also not entitled for any relief by answering issue Nos.1 and 2 as ‘negative’ and answered issue Nos.3 and 4 accepting the contention of defendant No.1 that there was sale deed in favour of the defendant. 16. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in Vineetha Sharma’s case that rights can be claimed by the daughters born earlier with effect from 09.09.2005 as provided in Section 6(1) of Hindu Succession Act as to the disposition, alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which has taken place before 2012.2004. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that alienation has taken place on 23.04.1958 and the claim of the daughter i.e. plaintiff is barred by proviso under Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Hindu Succession (Amended) Act No.39 of 2005 w.e.f., 09.09.2005. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation. Furthermore, at the time of execution of alleged sale deed dated 23.04.1958, if plaintiff was minor and not attained majority, she has not filed any suit within a period of 3 years and also taken note of limitation in paragraph No.19 that the same is a question of fact and law and also plaintiff was excluded from the property, though contend that her sister's husband was cultivating the property. But the fact is that plaintiff was not in joint possession is also taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. But the fact is that plaintiff was not in joint possession is also taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and both question of fact and question of law is considered by both the Courts and the appellant has not made out any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 17. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.