Non-application of proper article of Limitation Act.

1. The details as regards the suits, appeals and the second appeals therefrom are given in a tabular form below:

xxxxxxx

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.3551 of 1983 on the file of the 13th Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras is the defendant in O.S.No.6351 of 1984 is the defendant in O.S.No.3551 of 1983. The 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.6351 of 1984 Muthukrishnan who was not a party in O.S.No.3551 of 1982 and who was the first plaintiff in all the other suits died pending the suits and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 3 to 8 in the said suits. Except in S.A.No.950 of 1993, where Murugesan alone is the appellant, in the other second appeals Murugesan and the legal representatives of Muthukrishnan are the appellants.

3. In the course of this discussion, depending on the context the parties will be referred to either by their names, Kuppammal, Muthukrishnan, Murugesan or by their ranks in the suits. There are two schedules A and B in the suits ruled by the Muthukrishnan and Murugesan. A-Schedule is the same in all the suits while the B-Schedule in each suit is the portion alleged to have been encroached by the respective defendants.

4. The earliest suit is O.S.No.3551 of 1982 filed by Kuppammal against Murugesan. The extent covers an area of 1,260 sq.ft the part of which is the 240 sq.ft shown as B-Schedule in O.S.No.6351 of 1984 filed by Murugesan and Muthukrishnan against Kuppammal. The defendant in O.S.No.6562 of 1984. Govindan is the husband of Muniammal a cousin of Kuppammal the plaintiff in O.S.No.3551 of 1982 and the defendant in O.S.No.6351 of 1984. The defendant in O.S.No.6563 of 1984 Govindaraj is the son-in-law of Kuppammal. The defendant in O.S.No.6564 of 1984 Kuppan alias Shanmugam is the son-in-law of Govindan. The defendant in O.S.No.6562 of 1984 and Muniammal the second defendant Jayaraman in O.S.No.6565 of 1984 is the son of Kuppammals brother-in-law.

5. O.S.No.3551 of 1982 is for a permanent injunction restraining Murugesan from interfering with Kuppammals possession and enjoyment of an extent of 18 ft by 17 ft equal to 1,260 sq.ft in R.S.No.780/5 in 145, Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, Madras and for a mandatory injunction for the removal of a wall. So far as the other suits are concerned as already noticed the A-Schedule is the same in all the suits, while the B-Schedule gives the portion alleged to have been encroached by the various defendants. A plan has been filed along with the plaint in each of those suits showing the various encroached portions. The B-Schedule in O.S.No.6561 of 1984 in which Kuppammal is the defendant, the encroached portion is marked No.(1) and the area is given as 16 feet east west and 15 feet north south = 240 sq.ft. In O.S.No.6562 of 1984 the area encroached is marked by the No.4 and the extent is given as 10 feet east west and 16 feet north south= 260 sq.ft. In O.S.No.6563 of 1984 the area encroached is marked by the No.2 and the area is given as 8 feet east west and 6 feet north south = 48 sq.ft. In O.S.No.6564 of 1984 the number given as 3 and the area encroached is given as 10 ft. east west and 15 feet north south = 150 sq.ft. In O.S.No.6565 of 1984 the numbers given are 5 and 6 and the total area encroached is given as 10 ft. east west and 22 ft. north south = 220 sq.ft.

6. Theaverments in O.S.No.3551 of 1982 filed by Kuppammal are as follows:

The property subject matter of the suit belonged to one Brahamalambigai Ammal. She usufructuarily mortgaged the property to Narayanaswami Naicker and Rajambal and on the death of Narayanaswami Naicker and Rajambal, Kannammal wife of Narayanaswami Naicker and mother of Kuppammal became entitled to the property and Kannammal gave the property in equal share to Kuppammal and Muniammal, daughter of Rajammal equally and under separate settlement deeds on 11.3.1982. There was an earlier suit O.S.No.677 of 1957 filed by Brahamalambigai Ammal for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and the suit wa