Computation of period of limitation.

The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit is for partition. The plaintiffs are brothers and sons of One Sundara Reddy and all the three formed a joint Hindu family. The suit A Schedule properties were the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and their father and the case of the plaintiffs is that the father was leading a reckless and immoral life, that there was no legal necessity for him to dispose of suit items 1 to 6 of the A Schedule properties of defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 2,700 on 20th May, 1964 and items 7 to 9 to the third defendant for Rs. 500 on 29th June, 1953 and items 10 to 13 to the fourth defendant on 16th April, for Rs. 100 and items 14 to 16 to one Muthulakshmi Ammal on 11th August, 1942 for Rs. 462. The plaintiffs’ case is that all the sales were made for Very low prices, that their father Sundara Reddiar died in 1957, that the sales were not for family necessity and therefore not binding on them. The plaint gave the date of birth of the first plaintiff as 12th July, 1941 and of the second plaintiff as 29th February, 1943. The present suit is filed for partition after setting aside the sales in favour of the defendants and for possession of their two-thirds share. The suit originally was filed against the four defendants and against Muthulakshmi Ammal mentioning her as the fifth defendant in forma pauperis on 23rd November, 1961. Later, on the appointment of a Commissioner the value of the suit properties was found to exceed Rs. 5,000 and thereupon the plaint was returned on 10th June, 1963 for presentation before proper Court. In the meanwhile the plaintiffs compromised the suit with Muthulakshmi Ammal and consequent upon the said compromise and the deletion of the properties purchased by her the value of the suit properties came within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif. The plaintiffs, therefore, re-presented the plaint in the same Court (District Munsif’s Court) on 12th June, 1963 and the plaintiffs paid the court-fee due on the plaint for the amount got by the sale to Muthulakshmi Ammal and the suit was filed as a regular suit, against defendants 1 to 4. Thereafter the plaintiffs compromised with the fourth defendant and the suit was continued against defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs prayed for the reliefs mentioned above.

2. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the sales by the plaintiffs’ father was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and that therefore those sales were binding on the plaintiffs. They further contended that the suit was not in time.

3. On issue No. 3, relating to the question whether the suit is in time the school register Exhibit B-1 and B-2 showing the date of birth of the first plaintiff as 29th November, 1940 and that of the second plaintiff as 17th May,1943 were produced. The trial Court refused to accept the correctness of Exhibit B-1 and B-2, but accepted the oral evidence as to the dates of birth of the plaintiff as given in the plaint. The contention was that the representation of the plaint on 12th June, 1963 was not the same plaint which was presented on 23rd November, 1951 and consequently section 14 of the Limitation Act was not applicable. The trial Judge overruled the objection and held that the suit is in time. The trial Courts however, held on the merits that the alienations in favour of the defendants Were not for legal necessity and therefore not binding On the plaintiffs. In the result, the plaintiffs were granted a preliminary decree for their two-thirds share of items 1 to 6, 7 to 9 and 10 to 13 by reason of the compromise.

4. Defendants 1 and 2 filed A.S. No. 29 of 1966 to the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The appellate Court held that the entries in Exhibit B-1 and B-2 showing the date of birth of the first plaintiff as 29th November, 1940 and that of the second plaintiff at 17th May, 1943, should have been accepted by the trial Court and further held that the suit is in time so far as