( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed for recovery of possession of the lands in S. Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and for partition and separate possession of the lands in S. Nos. 640, 641, 645, 646 and 667. By a compromise decree in O. S. No. 20/59 on the file of the district Munsif, Kodangal, the plaintiff got title to S. Nos. 532, 640, 641, 643 to 646 and 667 of Kosigi Village, measuring 29 acres 29 guntas. This compromise decree is between the plaintiff and Saireddy s father. Subsequently, saireddy challenged the compromise decree as null and void by filing the suit being O. S. No. 8/60 and the suit was decreed. But, the District court leversed the decree by its judgment in A. S. 19/70 and held that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the lands bearing S. Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and that she is entitled for a half share in the remaining five survey numbers. The second appeal filed by Saireddy was dismissed. The plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit lands, during the pendency of O. S. 8/60. As saireddy and his legal representatives did not deliver the possession, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession of S. Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and for partition and separate possession of her half share in the remaining five survey numbers. Among other pleas, the main plea raised by the defendants is that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit lands and that her right became extinguished by lapse of time and the consent decree passed in o. S. No. 20/59 is null and void and Section 47 of the Tenancy Act also operated as a bar. The trial Court held that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. On appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff was dispossessed, during the pendency of O. S. 8/60, and the suit filed beyond 12 years from the date of such dispossession is barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents seeking to sustain the judgment of the lower appellate Court contended that the parties have been litigating in the Courts wifh regard to the title of the property and as such, the question of adverse possession or the suit being barred by limitation does not arise.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, the gist of the events, with reference to the litigation between the parties may be given.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit being O. S. 20/59 for declaration of ownership and rectification of the entries in the revenue records in respect of the suit lands against one Patel Reddy the father-in-law of the first defendant and the grand-father of the second defendant. The suit ended in a compromise decree on 31-3-1969. (Sic) Later on, Sai Reddy, the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second defendant, filed a suit O. S. No. 8/60 against the plaintiff and Patel Reddy for declaration that the decree in o. S. 20/59 was null and void and it is not binding on him. The suit was decreed on 31-3-1969 and in appeal in A. S. No. 19/70 the decree was set aside holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner for S. Nos. 532, 643 and 644 and for other lands she has half share. In second appeal, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court was confirmed. Thus, it is finally decided that the plaintiff is the owner of a portion of the suit lands and half share owner for the rest of the suit lands. It is stated on behalf of the defendants that, during the pendency of the suit O. S. 8/60, late Saireddy dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit lands. On the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff was dispossessed in 1960-61, that is, 18 years back, and the plaintiff has not filed the suit within 12 years from the date of the said dispossession.

( 6 ) THE present suit filed in 1975 is admittedly beyond 12 years from the date of dispos