JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1993 made in A.S.No.58 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Court, Karur, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.1990 made in O.S.No.86 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.)

1. The plaintiffs 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.86 of 1984 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Kulithalai for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and for passing of future mesne profits. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.58 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Karur and the first appeal has also been dismissed. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

3. The plaintiffs had contended that the suit 'A' schedule property, having an extent of 21.77 acres in Survey No.141 is a tank poromboke. According to the plaintiffs, 'B' Schedule property consisting of 1.40 acres is part of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs further contended that the suit 'A' schedule property and the Well located in the said property are being treated as a communal land by the villagers of Seppalapatti Village. The plaintiffs further contended that 'B' schedule property is part of 'A' schedule property and it is located slightly on a higher plane. The plaintiffs further contended that the first defendant had managed to obtain a patta in his name under the settlement scheme. The patta has been granted behind their back and hence, they have filed the present suit in the representative capacity, representing the villagers of Sepplapatti.

4. The first defendant filed a written statement disputing the representative character of the plaintiffs. The first defendant further contended that 'B' schedule property was purchased by him under Exhibit A3 dated 28.11.1923 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the said date onwards. The first defendant further contended that the suit property was taken over by the Government under Act 26 of 1948 and a settlement patta has been granted in his favour under Exhibit A16. The plaintiffs have not questioned the settlement patta or subsequent revenue patta granted in his name under Exhibit B45 and hence, the present suit is not maintainable.

5. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved that the suit schedule properties are tank poromboke. The trial Court further held that notice issued under Section 80 of C.P.C by the plaintiff to the second defendant is not in proper form and hence, the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs have not established that the suit properties were used by the villagers. The trial Court further held that even assuming that the suit schedule properties are the tank poromboke, the plaintiffs cannot claim title and recovery of possession. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs are not the representatives of the villagers. The trial Court further held that patta has been granted in favour of the first defendant way back in the year 1972 and the said fact is also known to the plaintiffs. However, the present suit has been filed only in the year 1984 and the suit is barred by limitation. Based upon the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

6. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings with regard to the validity of Section 80 notice and held that the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C has been validly issued. However, proceeded to hold that the suit has been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of issuance of the settlement patta in favour of the first defendant and found that the suit is barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs are not the real representatives of the villagers and hence, the application under Order -1 Rule 8 C.P.C is not maintainable. The First Appe