The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the limitation period for filing the suit and the principles under section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding entitlement to the deceased plaintiff's share.

1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant.This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 10.04.2001 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, in A.S.No.79 of 1997, whereby the decree and judgment dated 31.03.1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Villupuram, in O.S.No.1174 of 1994 were modified.

2. The 1st respondent herein and his brother are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.1174 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Villupuram, against the 2nd respondent and the appellant herein as the defendants, for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit A schedule properties and for delivery of possession of the same or, in the alternative, to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs half share in A schedule properties and also for a direction to the 2nd defendant to pay the sum of Rs.6000/- as past mesne profits and also the future mesne profits.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, as per the plaint averments, is as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the sons of the 1st defendant Balasubbarayalu Reddiar. The properties described in the plaint as A Schedule were originally purchased by one Neelakanda Reddiar, the grandfather of the plaintiffs in and by a sale deed dated 13.11.1963. He died intestate leaving his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal and his son, the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs mother Lalitha died 10 years prior to the filing of the suit. Thereafter, their grandmother Dhanalakshmi Ammal settled the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered settlement deed dated 29.05.1982. Since the plaintiffs were minors at that time, Dhanalakshmi Ammal appointed her brother Kesava Reddiar as the guardian for the plaintiffs till they attain majority and he was directed to hand over possession of the properties to the plaintiffs after attainment of majority and they had been given absolute interest over the same. While so, the 1st defendant, without any right or authority, by way of a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1982 sold A schedule properties in favour of the 2nd defendant. When the plaintiffs came to know about the alienation, they filed the present suit stating that the sale deed dated 21.06.1982 was not binding on them, for the reliefs stated supra as informa pauperis.

4. The said suit was contested by the 2nd defendant denying the settlement deed executed by Dhanalakshmi Ammal in favour of the plaintiffs since the suit properties were the joint family properties and stated that after the death of Neelakanda Reddiar, his son, the 1st defendant enjoyed the same on his own right by paying kist and raising crops. The 1st defendant had sold the properties for the family necessities and for the benefit of his minor sons i.e.the plaintiffs for a valid consideration of Rs.15,200/-under a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1982 to the 2nd defendant. Moreover, the suit is barred by limitation since the suit has not been filed within three years from the date of the minor plaintiffs attaining majority. The 2nd defendant had also prescribed title by adverse possession since he was in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the properties for more than 12 years.

5. On the basis of the above said pleadings, the trial court has framed ten issues and in order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A4 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked and the trial court, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, had granted the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs half share in A schedule properties and dismissed the relief of past mesne profits with a direction to the plaintiffs to file a separate application for future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. As against the judgment of the trial court, the 2nd defendant, through his power agent, filed a