Legitimate son entitled to reliefs prayed.

1. Defendants 17 to 20 in O.S.No.32 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai and respondents 17 to 20 in A.S.No.62 of 1983 on the file of the District Judge of East Thanjavur atNagapattinam are the appellants in S.A.No.597 of 1984.

2. Defendants 2, 21 and 22 in O.S.No.32 of 1981 and respondents 2, 21 and 22 in A.S.No.62 of 1983 are the appellants in S.A.No.1281 of 1984. The contesting respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and appellant in the appeal before the lower appellate court. The second appeals have been filed against the same judgment namely A.S.No.62 of 1983 by different parties to the proceedings.

3. The suit O.S.No.32 of 1981 was filed by the first respondent against 22 defendants, some of whom were tenants, and was for a decree that he was entitled to joint possession along with the first defendant in the suit, one Batcha Mohideen and others of the plaint A schedule properties with a joint right of management of B schedule trust and for a direction to the defendants 1 and 2 to render accounts to him and pay his due share in the surplus income from the trust properties from October, 1980. A genealogy has been appended and it is as follows:

"DIAGRAM"

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names or ranks in the judgment as the context would require.

Hameed Oli, the first respondent herein, filed the suit averring as follows: He was the son of one Shaik Ismail and Noorjahan. The first appellant in S.A.No. 1281 of 1984 was the wife of one Oliyullah alias Oli Maricair who was the son of one Mohamed Sultan. Hameed Oli and Noorjahan are shown in the genealogy as the descendants of one branch, namely, that of Hameed Ammal and Batcha Mohideen. The first defendant in the suit is shown as one of the descendants of the second branch, namely, Nijamudeen Maracair. There was a trust created in the plaint B schedule by Mohamed Rahman shown in the genealogy and the charities as mentioned therein should be conducted by the descendants of this founder of the trust. The case of Hameed Oli is that he is the son of deceased Sheik Ismail and Batcha Mohideen, the first defendant is the son of Noorjahan and as such he is entitled to joint possession of the trust properties and do the trust along with Batcha Mohideen and in the residue he is entitled to a share as per the terms of the trust deed. But Batcha Mohideen alone has been in sole possession and enjoyment of the trust properties and a notice was issued to Batcha Mohideen after the death of Oliyullah alias Oli Maricair under the original of Ex. A.4, dated 7.1.1981, claiming joint possession of the trust properties. There was a reply under the original of Ex.B-3, dated 2.2.1981 is- sued on behalf of Noorjahan to Hameed Olis lawyer. Since Hameed Olis demand had not been complied with, the suit was necessitated.

4. The contesting defendants namely Batcha Mohideen (D-1), Noorjahan (D-2), Pathima Sultan Ammal (D-17), Ponnachi alias Rahmath Nachiar (D-18), Sovutha Ummani alias Sellachi Ammal (D-19) and Manjoor Gani (D-20) filed separate written statements. They resisted the suit contending mainly that Hameed Oli was not the legitimate son of deceased Sheik Ismail and as such he was not entitled to a joint possession of the trust properties and that his claim in this respect was barred by limitation as he had not participated in the prior litigation, nor did he participate in the residue of the rents and profits of the trust properties all these years. So far as the tenants were concerned they claimed to be cultivating tenants and filed written statements to the effect that they were prepared to measure the rent to the persons declared to be the owners of the trust.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the plaint A schedule properties along with first defendant with joint rights of management and for account.

2. Whether the plaint