The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for recovery of possession and to set aside transfer of immovable property fell under Article 94 of the Limitation Act, and the plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the stipulated period resulted in the dismissal of the suit.

R. Banumathi, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 24.7.2003 made in C.S. No.673 of 1997, whereby the learned Judge had taken up the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue and dismissed the Suit as barred by limitation. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant for convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in the Suit.

2. Case of Plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the properties in Door Nos.16/1 and 16/2, 16/3 Veeraraghavan Road, New Washermanpet, described in Plaint ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ Schedules. In the property of the Trust Samadhis of Satti Paradesi and Raju Mudaliar, the Chief Disciple of Sanyasi Satti Paradesi are situated. To these was added a small Pillaiyar temple. The objects of religious Trust are stated to be:- (i) to conduct Guru Pooja every year on the Chitra Pournami Day for the Sanyasis entered in the Samadhis;

(ii) maintenance of Samadhi; (iii) Vinayaka Chathurthi Celebration; and (iv) Feeding Sadhus and poor on the Guru Pooja days and Thai Poosam day pooja.

3. The property was purchased by one Raju Mudaliar who was an ardent disciple of Swamiar Satti Paradesi. In order to construct a Samadhi for Satti Paradesi Swamiyar Raju Mudaliar purchased vacant land of an extent of 4 grounds in Tondiarpet. The parties are related to Raju Mudaliar as under:

RajuMudaliar V. Sabapathi Mudaliar (died in 1918) Santhalingam(adopted son) (Settlor) = Vijaya Saradambal RamalingamPlaintiff/Appellant Sakunatala(D1) Died Arunambikai (D2) R4 to R8 Legal representatives Geetha(D3)

4. After death of Raju Mudaliar Sabapathi Mudaliar was in management of the Trust and maintaining the Samadhis. After death of Sabapathi Mudaliar, his adopted son Santhalingam was in management. Earlier there was a suit in O.S.No.809 of 154 filed by Santhalingam against the then Poojari Chidambara Mudaliar alias Chidambara Swamy, and two others for declaration and possession and also for mesne profits. The said suit was decreed, which came to be challenged by Chidambara Mudaliar in A.S.No.74 of 1957. Confirming the judgment of the trial court the appeal was dismissed. Both in the suit as well as in the appeal it was held that the Trust was created over the suit property and that Santhalingam was the Hereditary Trustee.

5. The suit ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ Schedule properties have been settled in favour of defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively by the previous trustee late B. Santhalingam by three, settlement deeds all dated 27.3.1978 Case of plaintiff is that the properties are the trust properties, whereas the settlement deeds were executed as if the properties were the personal properties of B. Santhalingam.

6. Further case of plaintiff is that their mother Vijayasaradambal promised to settle the dispute by recovering the schedule properties to the plaintiff Trust and the said settlement deeds are null and void.

VijayaSaradambal died in 13.11.1996. The plaintiff made an oral request to the defendants and also issued notice to them calling upon them to vacate and deliver vacant possession. The defendants sent reply (Dated 6.2.1997) containing false allegations stating that the settlement deeds in favour of the defendants are null and void plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the three settlement deeds dated 27.3.1978 are null and void and to set aside the settlement deeds and to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties respectively and also to pay damages for wrongful occupation.

7. Resisting the Suit, the defendants have filed the written statement contending that the properties were settled in their favour even in March 1978 and that they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the properties and that they are entitled to collect rent from the properties. Claiming that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties, the defendants inter alia raised the question of plea of limitation and contend