The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 44 of the Limitation Act to determine the limitation period for the suit and the validity of the sale of the property.

Thiruvenkatachariar, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by defendant 3 in O.S. No. 641 of 1924 on the file of the City Civil Court. By the decree passed in that suit the appellant is directed to deliver up to the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent in this appeal, possession of the suit property and also pay him the mesne profits as ascertained therein and also his costs of the suit. Defendant 5 in the suit is impleaded as respondent 2 in this appeal.

2. The material facts of the case as to which there is now no dispute are as follows:

The suit property which is a house and ground in Old Washermanpet belonged to one Venkatarama Chetti. He died on 6th September 1904, leaving him surviving a son named Rangan Chetti, a grandson by that son named Krishnappa Chetti and also a widowed daughter and two grandchildren by her. On 22nd July 1904, he executed a will in respect of his properties which among others comprised the suit property. As regards the suit property, the provisions of the will gave to the son Rangan Chetti a life estate therein without power of alienation and the remainder absolutely to the grandson Krishnappa Chetti with full powers of alienation. An allowance of Rs. 6 per. month was also directed to be paid to the daughter and her children out of the income of the suit property until she got possession of her husbands estate: see Ex. A.

3. On 6th February 1905, the suit property was conveyed by a deed of sale to defendant 2 Gurunatha Mudaliar and his father Raju Mudaliar by the following persons, namely: (1) Rangan Chetti for himself and as father and guardian of his minor son Krishnappa Chetti, (2) Rangan Chettis wife Angammal (3), Venkatarama Chettis daughter, whose name is herein given as Peddiammal acting for herself and as guardian of her two minor children. The sale deed recites the receipt by the vendors of the consideration of Rs. 800 for which the property was sold and the delivery of possession of the property to the purchasers. Since then the suit property has all along been in the possession of defendant 2s family. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 2 and by some family arrangement, which it is unnecessary to refer to, the suit property was in his possession and enjoyment at the date of the suit, a portion thereof having been let by him to defendant 4.

4. Rangan Chetti died on 25th October 1913. On 7th March 1923 his son Krishnappa Chetti defendant 1 in the suit, executed a sale deed for the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, Govindammal for Rs. 1,500. The plaintiff has thereafter filed this suit on 1st December 1924, for recovery of possession of the property with mesne profits from defendants 2 to 4. Her case is that the sale of 6th February 1905 to defendant 2 and his father was invalid as against defendant 1; it was not made for any purpose binding on defendant 1 who was then a minor and his father Rangan Chetti had no power under the will to dispose of the property in any manner. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to possession of the property with mesne profits from the date of the sale to her. In the alteanative, the plaintiff prays that if the Court should hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for possession of the property, she should be given a decree against defendant 1 for Rs. 1,500 being the consideration paid by her to him for the sale, with interest thereon from the date of the sale.

5. Defendant 1 put in a written statement-admitting the sale of the suit house and ground by him to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500 and stating that the sale of the suit property by his father to defendant 2 and his father was a collusive and fraudulent transaction and that it cannot affect his title to the property. The plaintiff in virtue of the sale deed, he (defendant 1) has executed in her favour is entitled to a decree for possession of the property with mesne profits; but even if the Court should hold that she is not entitled to those reliefs she cannot claim the repayment to her by