K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

Defendants 4 to 6 are the appellants in this appeal. They are faced with a concurrent decree. The plaintiff was granted a declaration that Ext. A13 was not binding. Ext. A13 is dated 30.7.1973 where as the suit was instituted in the year 1988. It was contended by defendants 4 to 6 that the suit was belated and beyond the period provided for in Art.58 of the Limitation Act. That contention was negatived. It was also contended that as Ext. A13 had been challenged in O.P. 7073/82 by the plaintiff himself and failed, the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata. That was also not accepted. Therefore, this second appeal mainly raising substantial questions of law centered around limitation and the plea of res judicata.

2. Few facts are necessary to decide the questions of law in one way or other. The plaintiff was a kudikidappukaran under the predecessor in interest of defendants 4 to 6. This is an admitted fact. The predecessor in interest will be described as landlord herein-after and the plaintiff will be described as kudikidappukaran. The kudikidappukaran is no more. His legal representatives are on record and they are also respondents herein al