There is a stark distinction between cases in which an heir has been deprived of his shari share and disregarded at the time of recording of the inheritance mutation, and those cases in which the heir comes forward to seek his shari share after third-party rights in the subject land have been created.

There is a stark distinction between cases in which an heir has been deprived of his shari share and disregarded at the time of recording of the inheritance mutation, and those cases in which the heir comes forward to seek his shari share after third-party rights in the subject land have been created. To succeed in respect of the former category of cases, as compared to the latter, is legally less cumbersome, as it is not hurdled by the rigors of limitations - the possession over the inherited property by one heir is considered as constructive possession on behalf of all the heirs, and the cause of action would only arise, when the deprived heir seeks his share and the same is denied by the other in possession of the inherited property. However, to succeed in respect of the latter category of cases, where third-party interest is created in the inherited property, is legally more problematic, as the legal heir would then have to face the wrath of the period of limitation. The burden of proof would rest on the claimant heir to demonstrate and prove that he was not aware of having been deprived, give cogent reasons for not challenging the property record of long-standing, or showing complicity between the buyer and the seller (the ostensible owner) or that the buyer knew of his interest in the property and yet proceeded to acquire the same. It is when faced with such legal handicap that the claimant heir may seek exception to the bar of limitation provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, by establishing that he was kept oblivious to the cause of action or accrual of his rights through fraud, and therefore, was an „injuriously affected person‟. Thus, in cases, where the claimant heir, being an „injuriously affected person‟ has a right to sue, does not institute the suit claiming his right within the prescribed limitation period, no fresh period of limitation can be available to him, his legal heir(s) or any other person who derives his right to sue from or through him (the injuriously affected person).

In the case of denial of the inheritance to an heir, the cause of action to sue accrues to him, when the co-sharer[s]/legal heir[s] in actual possession of the inherited property denies (actually) or is interested to deny (threatens) the share of the claimant legal heir in the inherited property. The actual denial of right of a co-sharer by the other co-sharer may occur, when the latter does something explicit in denial of the rights of former, such as by making a fraudulent sale or gift deed. This Court has recently clarified that the transfer of property to a third party, be it through sale or gift, constitutes an actual denial of rights. In contrast, a simple annotation in the revenue records is regarded as a threatened or apprehended denial of rights.

It is a well-established practice of this Court that where there are concurrent findings of facts and law of the Courts below, this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the decision so made by them, unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting interference.