“The facts relevant to the question of limitation in the present case may be briefly restated: The trust deed was executed in 1916. The suit house was constructed in 1920. If, as we have held, the trust deed as well as the construction of the building were for the benefit of the family, its execution could not constitute any invasion of the plaintiff's right. Till 1926, the plaintiff's father, Ratanlal, was residing in that house. In 1928, when Daga challenged the trust deed, the family compromised the matter and salvaged the house. From 1936 onwards, the plaintiff has been residing in the suit house. It is conceded that he had knowledge of the litigation between Rukmabai and Chandanlal claiming the property under the trust deed; but, for that suit, he was not a party and the decision in that litigation did not in any way bind him or affect his possession of the house. But in the execution of the decree, the Commissioner appointed by the Court came to the premises on February 13, 1937, to take measurements of the house for effecting partition of the property, when the plaintiff raised an objection, and thereafter, in 1940, filed the suit. From the aforesaid facts, it is manifest that the plaintiff's right to the property was not effectively threatened by the appellant till the Commissioner came to divide the property. It was only then that there was an effectual threat to his right to the suit property, and the suit was filed within six years thereafter. We, therefore, hold that the suit was within time.”
