Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Monday, 21 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-04-25 dismissed

Bapusaheb Chimasaheb Naiknimbalkar (dead through Lrs.) & Anr vs Mahesh Vijaysinha Rajebhosale & Ors

Bench: 2 — Arun Mishra

In Brief

The case concerns a partition suit filed by the heirs of Anandibai for ancestral land. The defendants, including the original owner Chimasaheb's successors, argued the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (being filed 12+ years after the death of Shakuntalabai, an absolute female owner), and also barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The Supreme Court held that Article 65(b) applies only when property is claimed independently of a female's ownership and she was a limited owner. Since Shakuntalabai was an absolute owner and the heirs derived title through her death, Article 65(b) did not apply. Further, the partition suit had a different cause of action than the earlier declaration suit, so Order II Rule 2 CPC was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Limitation Act Hindu Succession Act Property Law Partition Adverse Possession Civil Procedure Code

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login