The validity of the compromise decree, the application of limitation, and the principle of estoppel were central to the judgment.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

[Because of the interconnectivity of the matter, the common judgment is rendered.]

1. The following are the allegations contained in the plaint:

1.(a) The suit property belonged to one late Chinni Yella Manda Chetty, who had two sons by name C.Y. Anjaneyalu Chetty and C.Y. Sanjeevi Chetty. Sanjeevi Chetty had two daughters who are plaintiff and 8th defendant. Anjaneyalu Chetty adopted 1st defendant by name C. Nagarajan. Sanjeevi Chetty died on 19.2.1952. His wife is one Visalakshmi Ammal. On the authority given to her by her late husband, she took 7th defendant C.S. Ramakrishna in adoption on 24.8.1953. Chinni Yella Manda Chetty on 14.7.1923 executed a Settlement Deed and a Will. Under the Settlement Deed, he settled 'A' Schedule properties to his first son Anjaneyalu Chetty and 'B' Schedule properties in the name of Sanjeevi Chetty. He also gave directions to his two trustees Sri Vattam Gopala Chetty and Sri Srirangam Pillai for the benefit of his two minor sons.

1.(b) He appointed both of them as executors, giving life interest to his sons and remainder to the sons or grand sons of his sons. He died on 21.9.1923. On 24.5.1928, a Conveyance Deed was executed by the executors in favour of Sanjeevi Chetty with reference to the suit property as per the direction in the Will. Hence Sanjeevi Chetty became absolute owner of the property. On 19.2.1952 he died leaving behind him, his wife Visalakshmi Ammal, Plaintiff and 8th defendant. C.Y. Anjaneyalu Chetty claimed rights from the estate of Sanjeevi Chetty, denying rights to his widow, daughters and adopted son. Hence, Visalakshmi Ammal filed suit in C.S.No.45 of 1954 for herself and on behalf of adopted son/7th defendant, before the High Court for the Administration of the Estate of Sanjeevi Chetty. Anjaneyalu Chetty and his adopted son/1st defendant filed C.S.No.55 of 1954 before the High Court against Visalakshmi Ammal and 7th defendant with prayers that adoption of 7th defendant was invalid and for recovery of possession.

1.(c) Both the suits were tried together. The adoption was held valid in the suit and it was also held that the properties in the suits revested in Chinni Yella Manda Chetty and after his death in 1923, Sanjeevi Chetty became entitled to one half of the properties and other half would go to Anjaneyalu Chetty and 1st defendant.

1.(d) Two appeals were filed at the instance of Visalakshmi Ammal and Ramakrishna in O.S.A.No.24 of 1956 and O.S.A.No.32 of 1957 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench confirmed the decree passed by the learned single Judge. Anjaneyalu Chetty died in 1973. Visalakshmi Ammal was completely kept in the dark and was not treated well by her brother-in-law Anjaneeyala Chetty and she underwent trials and tribulations at his hands. She died on 29.4.1991. The plaintiff was not aware of the properties left behind by Visalakshmi Ammal and 1st defendant approached the plaintiff with reference to some other matters and when the plaintiff's husband Mr.V. Venkatachalam enquired about the estate of Sanjeevi Chetty, he stated that the plaintiff, 8th defendant and 7th defendant were entitled to a share in the suit property and as his father executed a Trust Deed they lost their claims in the schedule property also. On request he gave to plaintiff's husband a copy of the settlement deed dated 4.9.1972 and on perusal of that it would be seen that Anchaneeyalu Chetty had created a public trust and appointed trustees. He refused to apprise the plaintiff about the subsequent proceedings in the appeal suits in O.S.A.Nos.24/56 and 32/57. By virtue of judgment in the Civil Suits, there has been no ouster and the property is vacant site with buildings.

1.(e) Advisors of Visalakshmi Ammal were influenced by C.Y. Anjaneyalu Chetty, who saw to it that no proper instructions were given to the counsel appeared for Visalakshmi Ammal. He took full advantage of the illiteracy and the active connivance of her advisors made h