Suit filed after 45 years of sale barred by limitation.

The suit properties belonged to one Varadammal, the second wife of one Kaveri Marudha Pillai. Kaveri Marudha Pillai was the grand son of the said Marudha Pillai through his first wife. Kaveri Ramasamy Pillai was the grand son of Marudha Pillai through his second wife. K.Ramasamy Pillais son is the plaintiff. K.Marudha Pillais daughter through his first wife and Varadammals daughter are defendants 1 and 2. The suit was filed for recovery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Varadammals estate enlarged into a full estate in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, on and from the date of coming into force of the Act, she could deal with the property as a full owner to her alienees, who are defendants 3 and 4. On these and other grounds, the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation holding that the suit has been filed beyond time.

2. As against this, the present second appeal has been filed and has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in taking into account the recitals in Ex.A.3 for the alleged assertion of hostile title, when it had been found that, that document is invalid?

2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in the view it took that the third respondent had perfected title by adverse possession?

3. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the right to recover the property was inherent with the ownership of the appellant even from the date of Ex.A3 and not from the date of death of Varadammal?"

The appellant died pending Second Appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. Defendants 1 and 2, the daughters of K.Marudha Pillai, also died pending appeal and their legal representatives have also been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3. To appreciate the rival submissions, the following factual details will help.

The suit properties, among other properties, belonged to one Marudha Pillai, who had three sons. The case turns on the role played by his second wife Varadammal in dealing with the properties. According to the plaintiff, Varadammal’s husband Marudha Pillai expressed his desire that if he dies without a male issue, his obsequies should be performed by the plaintiff. Varadammal executed a settlement deed on 5. 1932 in favour of the plaintiff who was a minor then specifically stating thereunder that the said settlement deed is being executed so that he would take care of her and also do the funeral rites. Certain debts were also mentioned in the settlement deed Ex.A.2, which had to be discharged by the said deed. There was a specific recital in Ex.A.2 that it was irrevocable. According to Ex.A2 the settlement was accepted by Varadammal herself as the plaintiff’s guardian. Two years thereafter, Varadammal executed a revocation deed.

This is Ex.A.3 where she had stated that she had no faith that the plaintiff would discharge the obligations and therefore, she was revoking the settlement deed. On 2. 1940, Varadammal sold 46 cents in Item No.1 of the suit properties to the father of the plaintiff. He sold it to another person on 16. 1943. It was again sold to another person on 211. 1944 and yet another person on 30.8.1945. The purchaser under the sale deed dated 30.8.1945 is the father of the third defendant. Varadammal died on 21. 1976. The remaining 48 cents of Item No.1 of the suit properties were sold by defendants 1 and 2 to the third defendant on 7. 1976 and Item No.2 was leased out to fourth defendant. According to the plaintiff, the petitioner had no right of revocation; there was no necessity for sale of the properties; the plaintiff is not bound by any of the transactions subsequent to 1934 as he was not a party to the same and he was also not bound to seek a