JUDGMENT: Kaliammal, the plaintiff/appellant, having lost in both the courts below, has approached this Court by filing this second appeal.

2. The appellant filed a suit against the defendants claiming for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/3rd share in the suit property and for mesne profits. The trial court, after trial, dismissed the suit holding that the necessary party has not been added and the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which, in turn, also dismissed the appeal, while confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is this:

"The suit property belonged to plaintiff’s father Philips, who died 10 years back leaving behind him, his son by name Kannan and two daughters Kaliammal (plaintiff) and Muruvayee as heirs to his property. After the death of their father, the plaintiff, Muruvayee and Kannan were in possession and enjoyment of the property. After her marriage, the plaintiff was living with her husband. In the meantime, the plaintiff’s brother Kannan sold the suit property to Karuppan, the first defendant. He also obtained a release deed from the plaintiff’s sister Muruvayee. The plaintiff has been demanding the first defendant, from January, 1986, to deliver possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit property. Evading the same, the first defendant sold the property in favour of the second defendant. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/3rd share in the suit property."

4. The case of the defendants is this:

"The property was the exclusive property of Kannan and the plaintiff is not entitled to 1/3rd share. The first defendant purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 27.1.1978. One portion of the property was purchased by the first defendant, viz., the third defendant. The suit is not maintainable and bad for non-joinder of necessary party, namely, Muruvayee. The suit is also barred by limitation, since the third defendant has been impleaded after 12 years from the date of the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant."

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed necessary issues. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked.

6. On consideration of those materials, both the courts below gave the findings that Muruvayee , the necessary party, was not impleaded and the third defendant, who purchased a portion of the property from the first defendant, was not impleaded within the period of 12 years and therefore, the suit is bad and barred by limitation.

7. Challenging the said findings of both the courts below, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on th strength of various decisions, would submit that the findings given by both the courts below are wrong, since the suit was instituted on 15.4.1987 itself, i.e., within the period of 12 years and that the second and third defendants had purchased the property only on 14.4.1987 and 18.4.1987 respectively. He would also point out that the said Muruvayee, who was the co-owner is not a necessary party.

8. The said contentions have been refuted by the counsel for the respondents, justifying the reasons given by both the courts below in dismissing the suit.

9. The substantial questions of law, which have been raised in the grounds of appeal, are these:

(i) Having rightly found that the father of the appellant was the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff has right to claim partition of her 1/3rd share, whether the courts below are right in law in assuming that the respondents 2 and 3 prescribed title by adverse possession, is not long, continuous, open exclusive, hostile and adverse to that of the appellant for over a statutory period as required under Art.65 of the Limitation Act?

(ii) Whether the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document