1. The State is the appellant. The only contention which has been urged before us by the Advocate General is as regards limitation. The question is which is the Article of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, that governs the tacts of this case: is it Art.24 or Art.113. The State contends that the applicable provision is Art 24 and that the court below has wrongly applied Art.113.

2. The respondent-plaintiff, The Thalayar Tea Co. Ltd., succeeded to the interests of the Talliar Coffee Estates, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'coffee company') by virtue of a scheme of amalgamation entered into between the two companies and sanctioned by order of the High Court of judicature at Madras in C.P. No. 25/1971. The coffee company had on 1-7-1966 instituted O. S. No. 70/1966 in the Sub Court, Kottayam. The question which arose in that suit was whether seigniorage was payable in respect of the silver oak trees cut and removed from its (1st plaintiffs) property and sold to plaintiffs 2 and 3. It was contended by the coffee company that silver oak trees were the absolute property of the company and that no seigniorage was payable in respect of those trees cut and removed fr