A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, if decreed, interrupts the running of time against the true owner and prevents the person in wrongful possession from acquiring prescriptive title.

JUDGMENT:- The second claimant in L. A. C. No. 128 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant herein. The said land acquisition case is a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act made to the Court in respect of the compensation awarded for certain lands acquired by. Government. Having regard to the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is unnecessary to refer to the land acquisition proceedings themselves in detail.

2. The case of the first claimant, who is the first respondent herein, was that the entire block of land of 6.15 acres belonged to him, the same having been purchased by his father-in-law in the Court auction held in O. S. No. 525 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee, benami for him and taken possession of as early as 1941; that while so, one Rajagopala Pillai claiming some right in the said property, trespassed into the same and started making some alienations to various persons who also began to trespass into the property; that thereupon the first claimant and his father-in-law filed C. S. No. 56 of 1951 on the file of this Court, which was later on transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras, and numbered as O S. No. 1162 of 1955, against the said Rajagopala Pillai and other trespassers in possession in a representative character; that the said suit after contest was decreed in favour of the first claimant directing possession of the said lands with mesne profits past and future to be delivered to the first claimant and his father-in-law; that 11 persons filed an appeal in C. C. C. A. No. 51 of 1957 on the file of this Court in which a conditional decree by consent was passed in favour of those appellants declaring their rights to the properties in their possession on their paying to the first claimant the value of said properties, as taxed in that decree; that subject to that condition and modification, the decree of the trial Court was confirmed against the other defendants and it had become final against them; that the claim of the appellant that she had purchased the acquired properties from one Rajagopala Pillai was not true and the same was rejected in those proceedings; that the first claimant filed E.P. No. 381 of 1962 for taking possession from the appellant herein; that when the bailiff went to deliver possession, she set up three obstructors to resist the delivery; that the first claimant filed M. A. No. 800 of 1963 for removal of obstructions which was ordered; that after all these proceedings, the appellant was coming forward to claim the compensation to which she was not entitled; and that therefore the first claimant prayed that the entire amount of compensation might be paid to him, as he alone was entitled to the same.

3. The case of the appellant was that she purchased the acquired property, that is, one ground and 1200 sq. ft from Rajagopala Pillai under Ex. B-1 sale deed dated 2-3-1950 for a consideration of Rs. 1,300, that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then upto the date on which the Government acquired the same; that she allowed some persons to occupy some huts put up by her in the said plot at her own costs and she had been collecting rents from them; that later on the appellant brought the 3rd claimant who is a close relation of her and permitted him to put up a hut; that the third claimant was there as a lessee by putting up the superstructure; and that the compensation of Rs. 500 might be paid to the third claimant who appeared to have realised a major portion of his mortgage due from several other purchasers from his mortgagee. The appellant prayed for marshalling the security and also stated that the first claimant can claim only a proportionate part according to the respective extents of plots held by the various purchasers. She also contended that she did not admit the ownership of the first claimant.

4. The third claimant contended that he was looking af