Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. The plaintiffs suit for recovery from the 5 defendants of whom 2 to 5 are minor sons of the 1st defendant of a portion of a house alleged to have been let by plaintiff to the 1st defendant in 1909 and for which he alleges that that defendant paid rent to him till 1915 has been dismissed by both the Courts below without taking evidence on these allegations though they were denied by the defendants on the preliminary ground that the suit is not maintainable by reason of the decree for possession of the suit house obtained in O.S. No. 12 of 1915 against the plaintiff and the 1st defendant by the Putta family who established their title to the house but who allowed that decree to become time-barred. The Lower Courts took the view that the passing of that decree had the effect as between the parties to this suit of destroying whatever rights the plaintiff may have previously had and of automatically putting an end to the tenancy pleaded by the plaintiff and that even if the plaintiffs allegations that he let the defendants into possession as tenants be true he would not be entitled to recover against them after that decree. The only question for determina