As per case facts, the plaintiff, a grand-daughter, sought partition of a family property and a declaration that a prior mutation and conveyance deed in her uncles' names were null ... and void. The property originally belonged to her paternal grandfather, who passed away intestate. After her father's demise, the plaintiff and her family were allegedly forced to leave. The uncles claimed an oral family partition occurred decades ago, where they received the suit property, and the plaintiff's family received another commercial property, which they later sold. The plaintiff contended that this arrangement was not binding as she was a minor then, and no court permission was obtained. The question arose whether the suit for declaration and partition was barred by limitation and if the oral partition was valid. Finally, the High Court ruled that the suit for declaration was time-barred as the plaintiff had knowledge of the mutation much earlier than claimed. Regarding the partition, while there is no limitation period for partition itself, the alleged oral partition was considered voidable, not void, for a minor's property. The plaintiff failed to challenge this within the limitation period after attaining majority. Therefore, the oral partition was deemed proved, and the plaintiff had no right to the suit property. The suit was dismissed.