Provisions of Limitation Act not applicable.

1. This second appeal at the instance of the defendant in O.S. 366 of 1977, District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, has been entertained on the following question of, Law -

"Whether the jural relationship of landlord and tenant covered by the lease deed dated 9-7-1936 had lapsed on 29-7-1961, is not the suit instituted in 1977 barred by limitation by virtue of Art. 67 of the Limitation Act 1963?"

2. The suit in O.S. 366 of 1977 was instituted by the respondents herein for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession and a sum of Rs. 300 by way of damages for use and occupation from the appellant. The suit property is a house situate in S. No. 19 in Melaveli Reddipalayarn village, Tharijavur taluk. According to the case of the respondents, the suit property originally belonged to Ramalinga Reddiar, deceased husband of the first respondent ancestrally and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death on 30-111975, and, thereafter, the respondents succeeded to the property as full owners. The appellant, according to the respondent, was a tenant under the deceased Ramalinga Reddiar and thereafter under the respondents, having entered into an oral tenancy from January 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15 payable on or before the 5th of succeeding English calendar month. The further case of the respondents was that the appellant had paid the rents regularly to deceased Ramalinga Reddiar till his death on 30-11-1975, and thereafter, she did not pay any rent at all. Thereupon, a notice was issued to the appellant demanding payment of the rent, for which the appellant sent a reply notice denying the title of the respondents. In view of this the respondents issued a notice on 107-1977 purporting to terminate the lease in favour of the appellant for forfeiture by denial of title. It was under these circumstances, the respondents instituted the suit praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant, she denied that the suit property belonged to Ramalinga Reddiar ancestrally and that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death on30-11-1975. The tenancy under Ramalinga Reddiar as well as the respondents was also denied. The payment of rent attributed to the, appellant till the death of Ramalinga Reddiar was also denied by the appellant. According to the case of the appellant, her father took on lease a portion of the vacant land from the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent by, registered rent deed dated 9-7-1936 and a superstructure was put up therein by him and subsequent to the rent deed and the putting, up of the superstructure, the mother-in-law of the first respondent stopped exercising rights of ownership over the property and the father of the appellant had been exercising such rights -for over decades and had been enjoying the property as absolute owner and had perfected title by adverse possession. The appellant thus claimed that after her father's death she had been exercising rights of ownership over the property as absolute owner. The appellant also denied the claim of the respondents for recovery of damages for use and occupation as claimed.

4. Before the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur, on behalf of the respondents Exs. A 1 to A9 were marked and the 1st respondent and another gave evidence as P.Ws. 1 and 2, while, on behalf of the appellant Exs. B1 to B4 were exhibited and the appellant examined herself as D.W. 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned District Musif found that. the respondents are the owners of the suit property, that the appellant was a tenant under, deceased Ramalinga Reddiar and thereafter, under the respondents, that the appellant, had not perfected title over the suit property by adverse possession, that the appellant is liable to pay damages for use and occupation and the respondents are entitled to recover: possession of the property from t