JUDGMENT

PARIPOORNAN, J. :—Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 3 in O.S. No.42 of 1973, Subordinate Judges Court, Kumbakonam, legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 who died pending the suit, are the appellants in the appeal. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit are the respondents herein. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 1502 of 1979, dated 15.6.1984. The said Judgment is reported in AIR 1984 Madras 340 : R Gopala Pathar v. N. Jayalakshmi Ammal.

2. In order to understand the nature of the controversy raised in this appeal a few facts may be stated. The property in dispute (in the suit) measures 10 feet east to west and 125 feet north to south in Big Street, Kumbakonam Town, Tamil Nadu. The suit property as well as similar extent measuring in all 10 feet east to west and 250 feet north to south belonged to one Visalakshmi Ammal. On 1-2-1928, by Exhibit B.1 Visalakshmi Ammal sold the entirety of the property aforesaid to one Govindaswamy and his brother Srinivasa, who was then a minor and was represented by his mother as guardian. In the document, Srinivasa was described as an undivided minor son in the family. The acquisition purports to be on behalf of the joint family consisting of Govindaswamy and his brother Srinivasa, sons of one Kuthaperumal Vidyar. On 29-8-1927, Govindaswamy was married to Kasambu Ammal (PW.2). They lived as husband and wife for about 3 years. They had no children. Thereafter Govindaswamy was not heard of. On 23-8-1970, by Exhibit A.4 (same as Exhibit A.11) Kasambu Ammal executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of one Nataraja Iyer, plaintiff No.1 for Rs.5,000/-. On the basis of Exhibit A.4, Nataraja Iyer instituted O.S. No.42 of 1973, in Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, praying for a declaration of his title to the suit property and also for a declaration that he was entitled to claim certain amounts lying in Court deposit to the credit of R.C.O.P. No.11 of 1971. The said R.C.O.P. No.11 of 1971 was a proceeding initiated by the 1st defendant (1st respondent) against the second defendant - the tenant (second respondent herein). The main contesting defendant is the first defendant, the first respondent herein. He contended that Kasambu Ammal was not the wife of Govindaswamy and had no interest in the suit property, and that the sale deed in favour of Nataraja Iyer was bogus and would not operate to convey any title to the suit property. According to him, Govindaswamy and Srinivasa constituted members of a joint Hindu family and since Govindaswamy was not heard of for over 7 years, Srinivasa became the sole surviving coparcener who acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession, and as per Exhibit B.2 dated 10-9-1970, he had acquired title to the entirety of the suit property from Srinivasa and so the first plaintiff Nataraja Iyer was not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the suit. The second defendant in the suit was a tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed. Since a rival claim of title to the property in his occupation was put forth by the first defendant, he contended that he was an unnecessary party to the suit and so the suit may be dismissed against him. The learned Sub-Judge by his Judgment dated 8-11-1976, found that Kasambu Ammal was the wife of Govindaswamy and was in possession of the undivided half share in the property, but the purported sale by her, of a definite portion i.e. front half of the property, was invalid. It was further held that Kasambu Ammal was in possession along with Srinivasa just 6-7 years prior to the filing of the suit and so the sale deed, Exhibit B.2 dated 10-9-1970 executed by Srinivasa in favour of the first defendant, though true, was not valid as Srinivasa was not solely and absolutely entitled to the property and had not perfected title to the property by adverse possession. It was further held that the sale deed, Exhibit A.4 by Kasambu Ammal to the first plaintiff Nataraja Iy