The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a valid basis for property claims and the significance of adhering to limitation periods in property disputes.

(M.M. Sundresh, J)

1. This Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2003, rendered in C.S.No.632 of 1999.

The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:

2. The suit property is a residential house. It was originally purchased by one Palanikumar Nadar on 20.09.1890 by a registered sale deed under Ex.P.2. The said Palanikumar Nadar died in the year 1893. He had two wives by name, Meenakshi Ammal and Vellaiammal. The appellant is the great grant son of the deceased Palanikumar Nadar through his first wife, Meenakshi Ammal.

3. The first wife, Meenakshi Ammal mortgaged the property on 24.01.1894 in favour of Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Limited. The said Nidhi Limited brought the suit property for sale in the public auction on 06.07.1918. The second wife of the deceased Palanikumar Nadar purchased the property in the public auction. Even though she had purchased the property, the entire transactions including the sale are void. Therefore, the entire property belongs to all the members of the family.

4. The defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs through the second wife of the deceased Palanikumar Nadar. The defendants 5 and 6 are the purchasers of the suit property made on 03.06.1993 from defendants 2 to 4. Since the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for a half share of the suit property, the suit has been filed for partition and separate possession, for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 03.06.1993 are null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 5 and 6 from putting up construction over the suit property. The case of defendants 5 and 6 are as follows:

5. The defendants 5 and 6 are the purchasers of the suit property from defendants 2 to 4 by way of two registered sale deeds dated 03.06.1993 for valuable consideration. The said sale deeds have been confirmed by the first defendant in the suit. The suit property was purchased by Vellaiammal from whom the defendants 2 to 4 acquired their title. The appellant after waiting for a period of more than 60 years has filed the suit claiming half share in the suit property. There is no basis for the claim of the appellant and there is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is barred by limitation and therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant has examined himself as P.W.1. The defendants 1 to 4 did not file any written statement and a written statement has been filed in favour of defendants 5 and 6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration:

"i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim ½ share in the plaint schedule property for all or any other reason stated in the plaint?

ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

iii. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?"

7. The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence available on record, coupled with the oral evidence found that the appellant did not have any semblance of title inasmuch as the suit property was purchased by Vellaiammal from whom the defendants 2 to 4 had acquired their title. The Trial Court has also relied upon Exs.P-9 and 10 to hold that the suit is liable to be dismissed. Regarding the issue No.2, the Trial Court found that inasmuch as the appellant became a major in the year 1948, the suit filed in the year 1995 and numbered in the year 1999 is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on both the issues. Challenging the same, the appellant has come forward to file the present appeal.

8. Mr.S.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, the Trial Court has not considered the evidence of P.W.1 and wrongly held that, the suit property is a self-acquired property of Vellaiammal. The family treated the suit property as a joint suit property and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the share. It is further submitted that, the transfers made b