Limitation in filing suit

In India, the doctrine of adverse possession is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The act specifies that a person who has been in possession of a property for a period of 12 years or more can claim ownership over it. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For instance, if someone is wrongfully in possession of your land, you can claim it back even if they have been squatting on it for more than two years

Sir,

I have gone  through the  study on limitation. However,  Whether I can file fresh suit  after abonding the suit filed by my mother  who expired in 2019.  Whether the interruption given by my mother  by filing suit would be beneficial to me  in the limitation

There is no question of abonding the suit filed by your mother because it has already been disposed.

Your mother preferred an appeal against the aggrieved judgment, hence there is no question of suit being abandoned by your mnother.

If you file a suit again then it may be hit by law o res judicata.

If you withdraw the appeal then it will be deemed that you have accepted the trial court judgment, either way if you contest the appeal and if the same is dismissed and if you decide to file a fresh suit, then also the law or resjudicata will operate. 

Thanks for the valid reply Sir, I am satisfied with the reply 

Try to remand the suit for fresh trial in trial court by filing application to amend plaint of subdivision sy no and to lead evidence, civil case has no end.

You are welcome for your appreciations

Thank for the advice to file amendment application. Also helpful advice.

The posting is rather disjointed -

"I have  appeared as legal heir" - Are you the only legal heir? If so, have you got impleaded as the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of Order XXII CPC?

"Now It is opined that in the framing of suit there is formal defects i.e.,  New  sub divided survey number was not mentioned in the plaint" -  Who has opined? How this alleged defect is going to affect the merits of the Appeal? What is meant by "New sub divided survey number"?  How and when the sub-division has taken place? 

If an event subsequent to the filing of the suit, the pleading could be amended. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of  Shivshankara & Anr. versus H.P. Vedavyasa Char -

"Code of Civil Procedure 1908; Order VI Rule 17 - In dealing with prayers for amendment of the pleadings the Courts should avoid hyper technical approach. But at the same time, we should keep reminded of the position that the same cannot be granted on the mere request through an application for amendment of the written statement, especially at the appellate stage".

Sir,

Thanks for the previous advice. 

My reply to the above questions dated 24.10.23.

I and my sister appeared as a legal heir by filing an LR petition. My lawyer opined. Because the land  37.5 cents was purchased by my Great-grandfather. The property was purchased from one X  who had 50 cents and who sold undividedly 12.5 cents to his brother B in 1920. After that in 1924, He sold the rest 37.5  cent undividedly to my Great Grandfather.  The 12.5 cent was taken by the Son of  X    in the eastern side.  He died without any testament or deed. His five children shared orally the land in various sizes of shares not equally depending upon their shares in other property. Three of them sold their shares. Our shares  12 cents were left in the eastern side along with X & sons. At the time of UDR when all this punsei land was vacant, instead of 12 cents randomly subdivided the land into 17.5 cents. and sole patta was given to the X & Sons.  So,  One of the sons of X got a sale deed in 1995 from X for 17.29 cents which is 7 are. the son of X sold the 17.29 cents to three persons @ 10.25 cents, 5.5 cents, and 2 cents. So they occupy our 5 cent lant. This is the dispute. In  1969 My grandfather wrote a will for   3  cents in the western side and 7.5  cents in the middle. The 1.5 cent was given extra by the co-owners in  1973 as the land was reallotted allotted in the eastern side together. Therefore, with the will, it is very difficult to prove our title with respect to the difference of boundary and extent.  Therefore we wanted to file a fresh suit with a plaint sketch for the entire 37.5 cents according to the 1924 deed with null and void declaration of the 1995 sale deed and impleading other co-owners as formal defendants.    

The new subdivision took place in UDR which we do not know. 

The posting, as above, is additional information than clarification, as requested. And the addtional information is so vague and disjointed that any menaingful suggestion requires that the documents be perused and issues discussed.

I have given answer to  Whatever quries asked. Still it is disjointer means it is never ending .

Yes let it be always. Am sorry for asking quries here. 

Is it the same proceedings on which you had posted another query?