JUDGMENT.-The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 35 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul are the appellants. The suit property is a house in Palani Town. It belonged to the father of the plaintiffs named Ramaswamy Iyer, having been purchased by him under a sale deed dated 7th July, 1919 (Ex.A.1). The said Ramaswamy Iyer leased out the southern portion of the suit house to the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.4. In or about 1940 the northern portion of the suit house was also leased out to the first defendant. He committed default in payment of the rents and, therefore, Ramaswamy Iyer instituted proceedings before the Rent Controller, who was at the relevant time the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, for eviction and obtained an order for eviction. That order was the subject of an appeal in C.M.A.No. 11 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul. The appeal was dismissed on 18th July, 1951. Ramaswamy Iyer thereafter applied under E.P.No. 520 of 1951 for obtaining delivery of possession in execution. At that time there was obstruction from one Pachiammal and her son, the second defendant. Ramaswamy Iyer was directed to file an application for removal of the obstruction. He, therefore, filed M.P.No. 514 of 1951, which was allowed on 13th March, 1952. Under the said order the delivery was to be effected by 9th April, 1952 after removing the obstruction of the second defendant and his mother. The second defendant and his mother filed O.S.No. 24 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul, to set aside the said order and declare their title to the property. The suit was dismissed with costs on 3rd March, 1953. The second defendant and his mother were thereafter not entitled to question the title of Ramaswamy Iyer. Ramaswamy Iyer filed E.P.No. 812 of 1952 in the Court of the District Munsif Palani, for delivery of possession. He, however, became unwell by the time the further proceedings could he taken and the execution petition itself -was dismissed on 6th June, 1953 for non-prosecution. Ramaswamy Iyer died on 29th January, 1954. He left behind his widow, the third plaintiff and his sons, plaintiffs 1 and 2. They brought the present suit alleging that the first defendant had trespassed into the suit property by about the end of 1954 and was thereafter residing therein with the assistance of the second defendant and his mother.

2. The first defendant filed a written statement,but thereafter remained ex parte. On his depth, the third defendant was brought on record.

3. The second defendant his written statement pointed out that the property was known as ‘Palkavadi Mattam’ founded by Kongu Vellalars of Kuthilupai village and belonged to that community. It was contended that Ramaswasmy Iyer, an influential person, had colluded with the first defendant to create false documents and that he never had possession of the suit property at any time. It was also contended that the present suit was barred by section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also by limitation.

4. The Court below went into the several issues framed in the suit and held that the plaintiffs or their predecessors not having been in possession of the suit property within 12 years prior to suit were not entitled to the relief of recovery of possession and that the claim was also barred by limitations. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, rejected the plea that the building belonged to Kongu Vellalar community. The plaintiffs have filed the appeal challenging the correctness of the conclusions that the suit was barred by limitation. The second defendant has filed a memorandum of cross-objections contesting the conclusions on the other issues. It is common ground that in case the plea of limitation is sustained then it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the cross-objections. It is, therefore, necessary to go into the question of limitation and then consider if necessary, the question raised in the cross-objections.

5. The learned counsel for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document