Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. In the suit from which this second appeal arises the appellants were defendants. The plaintiffs action was for recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits on the ground that in a previous litigation between the parties which finally ended in Second Appeal No. 457 of 1915 on the file of this Court the plaintiffs title to the property was declared and recognized. This suit, however, was rendered necessary because, taking advantage of the fact that in the District Munsifs Court in that litigation the defendants who were the plaintiffs obtained a decree, they had gone soon after to the Magistrate and on the basis of that decree obtained possession of that property with reference to which the Magistrate had made certain orders and appointed a Receiver under Section 146, Criminal P.C.

2. Three contentions have been raised before us by the learned Counsel for the appellants. His contention was that the plaintiffs suit is barred by the law of limitation. In this connexion it may be noted that, though limitation has been raised perhaps as usual in most cases by the defendants in their written statement the exact manner in which it is now con