A. Hariprasad, J.

Defendants in a suit for declaration of title to the plaint property and recovery of possession are the appellants.

2. Relevant pleadings, in short, are as follows:-

Plaintiff/respondent is title holder of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext. A1 sale certificate issued pursuant to the auction sale conducted on 30-03-2011 in EP 74/1999 in OS No.540/1997 before the Court of Munsiff, Changanassery. The suit was for realization of money. First appellant herein was the sole defendant in the suit. Pursuant to the money decree passed against the first appellant, his property was attached and sold in court auction and the plaintiff/respondent purchased it. Plaintiff could not take delivery of the property within a period of one year stipulated under Article 134 of the Limitation Act 1963, because he was abroad at that time. After issuance of the sale certificate, the first appellant (sole defendant in OS No.540 of 1997), inducted the 2nd defendant into possession of the property and therefore the plaintiff contended that the 2nd defendant is in unlawful possession. Hence he sought for a declaration of his title and recovery of possession.

3. The appellants/defendants filed a written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff has no title to the property and he is not entitled to possess the same. In fact, the 2nd defendant, after paying valuable consideration, obtained possession of the property. It is further averred in the written statement that both the appellants are jointly possessing the property. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial court, after considering the rival contentions and evidence on both sides, decreed the suit. The appellants took up the matter before the lower appellate court. That court, after re-appreciating the evidence, concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

6. The substantial questions of law framed in the Second Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether a suit is maintainable for declaration of title and recovery of possession when the decree holder has not applied for delivery of possession as provided under Order 21, Rule 95 of C.P.C. on confirmation of sale in a court auction?

2. Whether the suit is barred under Article 134 of the Limitation Act?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court and lower appellate court committed a legal error in referring to pleadings of the defendant alone to determine the relevant period of limitation. The trial court found that going by the contentions of the defendants, Article 65(c) of the Limitation Act applies and therefore the suit instituted beyond one year prescribed under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, but within 12 years prescribed in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, is maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that this view of the courts below is incorrect. According to him, the courts below should have considered the plaint averments to determine the period of limitation. It is true that primarily the plaint averments should be taken into account for determining the question of limitation in a suit. However, in some cases, the contentions in the written statement may also become relevant depending on the facts and circumstances. However, at any rate, the plaint averments cannot be disregarded for deciding the question of limitation. Going by the plaint averments, it can be seen that the property was not taken delivery of pursuant to the sale certificate as provided in Order 21, Rule 95 C.P.C. The period prescribed for taking delivery of property pursuant to an auction sale as per Article 134 of Limitation Act is one year, when the sale becomes absolute. Admittedly, in this case, the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of property on the strength of title was filed beyond one year. Another admitted fact is that it was filed within 12 years prescribed under Article 65 of the Limita