This appeal was directed to be posted before a Bench by one of us to consider the correctness of the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Ramiah v. Brahmiah1.

The question raised is one of limitation. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in the two courts is the appellant in this second Appeal. She filed the suit for a declaration that the alienations made by Kokilambal, the 9th defendant, were not valid and did not bind her. She also sued for possession of the suit properties with future mesne profits and costs. The properties in suit originally belonged to one Doraiswami Reddi. He died in 1929, and the properties devolved on Raghava Reddi, his son by his first wife, and after Raghava Reddi’s death they devolved on Sitharama Reddi, a minor son of Doraiswami Reddi by his third wife, Kokilambal (the 9th defendant). The minor was born in 1926. During his minority the 9th defendant, Kokilambal as his guardian effected two alienations, which are the subject-matter of the suit, one in favour of Appaji Reddi under Exhibit B-3, dated 17th February, 1933 and the other in favour of the third defendant of the B-3 schedule properties, but no sale deed was produced as the third d