Suit filed after expiry of limitation period hence barred.

The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.910 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Villupuram, who succeeded before the learned trial judge but lost before the first appellate court in A.S.No.7 of 1983, where under the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, chose to reverse the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge.

2. The suit O.S.No.910 of 1980 came to be filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/4th share of the suit property and 1/4th share rent from the date of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to one Jankirama Pillai and his sons, who are defendants 1 to 3, fourth defendant being the daughter and the fifth defendant the wife of Jankirama Pillai. First defendant sold his 1/4th share to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 7. 1967, marked as Ex.A-2, and the father Jankirama Pillai is said to have died in the year 1973 leaving behind three sons, daughter and wife. Since the plaintiff wanted his share divided by metes and bounds and defendants 1 and 3, though, initially were offering to sell, later, did not pursue the same, the plaintiff was driven to the necessity of filing the suit noticed supra. The second defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the third defendant contending that the sale said to have been effected in favour of the plaintiff was neither valid nor binding, that knowing that the plaintiff had purchased a portion from the first defendant, the defendants along with their father issued a registered notice on 9. 1967, marked as Ex.B-3 which was also received by the plaintiff and that he kept quiet all along till the suit in question came to be filed on 28. 1980. It was also contended that the first defendant, who sold a share in the property, was out of possession of the property and when the attempt of the purchaser to claim possession was resisted, the plaintiff must be considered to have been ousted from the property at least on and from the date of the notice Ex.B-3 and that Jankirama Pillai, the father has executed a settlement in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and by virtue of their continuous, uninterrupted and open possession and enjoyment of the property, they have also prescribed title by adverse possession. On the above claims and counter claims, the suit came to be filed and tried and both the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence.

3. Learned trial Judge while placing reliance upon the decision in Manikayala Rao v. Narasimhaswami, A.I.R. 1966 B.C. 470:(1967)1 S.C.J. 110: (1967)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 29: (1967)1 An.W.R. (S.C.J 29, held that were a person has purchased an undivided interest of a coparcener, adverse possession against him would not commence until there is a partition and allotment of the properties to the purchaser and consequently, the suit filed was well within the period of limitation and the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for. Aggrieved, defendants 2 to 5 filed A.S.No.7 of 1983. Learned first appellate Judge while placing reliance upon the decision in V.C Thani Chettiar v. Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar, (1955)1 M.L.J. 414: A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 28 and also the observations contained in Manikayala Rao, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 470, held that in view of the challenge made even in the year 1967 to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the right of his vendor to sell the property to the plaintiff, the right of the plaintiff to possession commenced even in the year 1967 itself and since within 12 years from the said date no steps have been taken by the plaintiff, the suit was barred by time and the respondents before the first appellate court (Plaintiff and his vendor were ousted from possession and thereby, the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession. Aggrieved, the above second appeal has been filed.

4. Mr.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while elaborating the substantial questions of law formul