The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rule of lis pendens enunciated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not abrogated by the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which deals with fixity of tenure under Section 13.

Defendants 10, 12 and 13 are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession of the properties scheduled to the plaint. The only questions arising in this appeal are whether the three appellants are entitled to the protection conferred by Sections 7 and 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act 1 of 1964, and whether the suit is barred by limitation as against any of these appellants. We shall deal with these questions.

2. The suit was, instituted on 15-9-1954. On that day only the 10th defendant was on the party array. Defendants 12 and 13 were impleaded in the suit in the year 1959. The suit has been filed on the basis of an execution sale held in O. S. 306 of 1942 of the Chowghat Munsiff's Court. That sale was on 1-7-1942 and was confirmed on 17-8-1942. The decree holder took what is called symbolical delivery of the properties on the 14th and 15th of September, 1942.

3. A question has been raised as to whether a suit would lie in view of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This question has been found against the defendants by the trial Court relying on the rulings of this Court in People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Parvathy Ayyana Pillai, 1958 Ker LT 925 : (AIR 1959 Ker 133) and in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Lakshmi Ammal Meenakshi Ammal, 1957 Ker LT 1094 : (AIR 1958 Ker 309). We are of the view that this conclusion is correct and the appellants' contention that the suit as such is not maintainable and the suit is barred by limitation under Article 138 of the Limitation Act cannot stand for the suit has been filed within 12 years of the date on which symbolical delivery was given. It has been held that that date will give a fresh cause of action for a suit for recovery of possession.

4. The further question regarding limitation that arises relates only to defendants 12 and 13. This is based on Section 22 of the Limitation Act. It is not disputed before us that the suit as against these defendants can be taken to have been instituted only in the year 1959. This is clearly beyond 12 years of the date of symbolical delivery, namely, 16-9-1942. Prima facie therefore the suit as against these defendants is not maintainable. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to make out any special circumstances which will entitle him to contend that the suit instituted beyond 12 years of the date of symbolical delivery is maintainable. It was faintly suggested that the 12th defendant came into possession only in 1948 and that the suit was instituted in 1959 within 12 years as against him. He had not perfected his title by adverse possession at that time and therefore the suit is maintainable against him. We do not think this contention is entitled to any weight. The plaintiff must prove subsisting title or possession within 12 years of suit. The last date on which he can be said to be in possession is only 15-9-1942 and the suit instituted only in 1959, is clearly barred by limitation. We have accordingly to hold that the suit as against defendants 12 and 13 is not maintainable and the suit as against them will have to be dismissed.

5. As far as the 10th defendant is concerned, the suit is not barred by limitation as the 10th Defendant was on the party array when the suit was instituted in 1954. The only question as far as this defendant is concerned, is whether he is entitled to protection conferred by Sections 7 and 13 of the Land Reforms Act, 1 of 1964. We shall read these sections :

"7. Certain persons occupying land honestly believing to be tenants, to be deemed tenants. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of Court, any person who, on the 11th day of April, 1957, was continuously in occupation of the land of another situate in Malabar, for not less than two years, honestly believing himself to be a tenant and continued to be in occupation of such land at the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed