Period of limitation thirty is years for recovery of possession.

The defendant in O.S.No.350/83 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for redemption, partition and future profits on the following averments:

The suit property belonged to him and his deceased brother Subbian Chettiar. Subbian Chettiar sold his rights to the appellant/defendant. On 10-10-1122 M.E., corresponding to 24-5-1947, the plaintiff executed an othi in favour of one Bagavathi Amma. On 11-11-1124 M.E., corresponding to 25-6-1949, the defendant obtained an assignment from Bagavathi Amma. The plaintiff is an agriculturist. The first item is agricultural land. The second item is garden land. As per Act 4 of 1938, the othi debt got fully discharged on 10-11-1154 M.E., corresponding to 25-6-1979. The plaintiff has become entitled to recover possession of the property. As he had 30 years for filing the suit, the suit was in time. The plaintiff could get redemption of the othi as per Oodukur rights. The plaintiff through his Power of Attorney Holder, suggested to the defendant on 27-2-1983 to have a settlement. The defendant not having accepted the suggestion, the suit came to be filed. Till the property is given back to the plaintiff, he is entitled to mesne profits.

2. The defendant resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows:

The plaintiff has no right over the suit properties. The plaintiff's brother deceased Subbian Chettiar sold the entire suit properties in favour of the defendant. The sale was on behalf of the plaintiff also. He also accepted the same and did not question it in any Civil Court within the period of limitation. The defendant is in possession of the suit property, after redeeming the earlier mortgage and his possession is that of a jenmi. In any event, the suit is barred by limitation as well as by adverse possession.

3. There were other defences raised, but for the purpose of disposing of the second appeal, they are not relevant.

4. The trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and the documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938, that the mel-othi as pleaded by him, was true and that the defendant had not prescribed for title by adverse possession. In short, the learned District Munsif held on all issues in favour of the plaintiff and by judgment and decree dated 10-12-1986 granted the plaintiff's prayer.

5. The defendant filed appeal in A.S.No.5/87 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Padmanabhapuram. The learned Subordinate Judge, by judgment and decree dated 29.8.1989 confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. It is as against that, the present second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was raised for decision in the second appeal:

"Is not the possession of the defendant adverse to the plaintiff by reason of Exs.B-2 and B-3 sales and the title of the plaintiff lost by adverse possession?"

7. Mrs. Chitra Sampath, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that: the plaintiff came forward with a definite case that the defendant was an assignee of the suit mortgage dated 10-10-1122 M.E. and she failed to establish the same and therefore, the suit for redemption against her was not maintainable; the Courts below were in error in relying on Ex.A-4 written statement in an earlier suit O.S.No.622/81, in which, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had admitted about the assignment; in any event, the Courts below ought to have held that from the dates of sale under Exs.B-2 and B-3 in 1970, the defendant must be deemed to have been in possession of the properties and prescribed for title by adverse possession; even otherwise, from the date of the alleged assignment, viz. 25-6-1949, the period of 30 years prescribed under the Limitation Act for redemption expired in 1979 and the suit having been filed only in 1983 was barred by limitati