Ram (Scientist) 09 April 2022

Limitation act, adverse posession, koor chit partition

Father – 5 Legal Heirs (2 Sons, 3 Daughters)

1974:

While alive Father and his 2 sons have prepared a family partition “Koor chit” (Unregistered document) which accorded family ancestral properties into 3 shares (One for himself) and a share to each of his sons (Daughters weren’t given a share and neither their names were mentioned in the “Koor chit” partition nor they were signatories)

1974-1985:

All the 3 (Father and 2 sons) are enjoying their share of properties individually on their own (transferred patta into their individual names per their schedule of properties) per the 1974 “koor chit“ partition.

1985:

Father dies and 2 sons divide his share of property amongst themselves through another “koor chit” (Unregistered) deed (Daughters weren’t given a share and neither their names were mentioned in the “Koor chit” partition nor they were signatories)

Two sons are enjoying their share of properties individually and they individually sold/mortgaged portions of properties they have inherited to 3^rd parties.

13 years later:

1998:

One of the daughters of Father files a suit claiming 1/12 share in ancestral property as if a family partition has never happened. All the remaining legal heirs (2 sons and 2 daughters) of Balakrishna are included as defendants in the suit.

1998 – 2022 – The case has only reached Trial stage in the court and still under trial.

2022:

Application under VII RULE 10(A) CPC – Revised plaint based on 2005 act 35/2005 claiming 1/5^th share.

Questions:

Is the unregistered 1974 “koor chit” partition among the father/sons (excluding daughters) recognizable under law? Is it a valid partition in the eyes of law?
Assuming the 1974 partition is valid in the eyes of law, Given that a partition suit was filed only in 1998 by the petitioner, Does 1963 limitation act (12 years), make their claim invalid in the court?
Do the petitioner have any rights to claim 1/5^th share based on 2005 act?
If 1974 “koor chit” is invalid in the eyes of law, Would adverse possession accord the title to the sons given that they enjoyed the property by individually between 1974 onwards.