Limitation period can be computed only if date of trespass is pleaded and proved.

This Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff, calling in question, the legality of the judgment of the Sub-Judge, Poonamallee in A.S. No.25 of 1993 confirming the judgment of the Additional District Munsif in O.S. No.1084 of 1972.

2. The plaintiff initially filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and subsequently filed an I.A. for amending the prayer seeking recovery of possession of the suit property and got the said I.A. allowed.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as under:

He purchased the lands in S. No.295/1 and 295/2 measuring 8 grounds and 60 sq. ft., which is the suit property, from one Kanniammal vide sale deed dated 17.06.1965 and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant who is the owner of plot no.4 lying to the north of the suit property, having purchased the same from Kanniammal on 05.03.1965, purchased yet another plot during April 1971 and on that basis, with a view to annexe the suit property to plot no.4 owned by him, attempted during the third week of September 1971, to destroy the fence put up by the plaintiff in the suit property. This was objected to by the plaintiff and a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff on 29.09.1971 and an evasive reply notice dated 110. 1971 was sent by the defendant. Since it is the plaintiff who got the sale deed executed first, he has to be granted (i) relief of declaration of title (ii) interim injunction against the defendant and (iii) relief of recovery of possession of the suit property by removing the superstructure in the suit property.

4. On the contrary, the case of the first defendant, as culled out from the written statement, is as follows:

There is no correlation between the suit property and the property the plaintiff claims to have purchased; he (the defendant) is the owner of two plots measuring 5.02 acres in Survey Nos.295/1 and 295/2, viz., an extent of 16 grounds and 1,731 sq. ft. being plot no.4 purchased on 05.03.1965 from Kanniammal and an extent of 16 cents, purchased on 05.03.1971 from Natesa Chettiar, the second defendant who is none other than Kanniammals husband, without any encumbrance; he has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of these properties right from the date of sale deed and there is absolutely no pleading in the plaint as to which portion was encroached by the first defendant in the land purchased by the plaintiff from Kanniammal. The first defendant filed his additional written statement contending that the I.A. filed in 1987 to amend the prayer in the plaint is barred by limitation.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, one witness was examined and three exhibits were marked and on the defendants side, ten exhibits were marked and one witness was examined.

6. The Trial Court, on an examination of the evidence let in on either side, decreed the suit as for the declaration of title is concerned and negatived the relief of recovery of possession on the ground that the prayer for relief of possession was amended after a long span of 12 years and that the Limitation Act bars the claim for possession.

7. The lower appellate court concurred with the finding of the Trial Court with regard to declaration of title and negatived the claim for vacant possession but on a different ground, i.e. not on the ground of limitation but on the ground that the plaintiff has not clearly defined the portion encroached upon by the first defendant.

8. As against the negative findings of the Courts below, though different, in respect of recovery of vacant possession, the present Second Appeal by the plaintiff and this Court, had admitted this Second Appeal on the substantial question of law as to whether the relief for possession is barred by limitation.

9. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on the side of the appellant has contended that the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the portion of decree that went against him in respect of declarati