JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1. This Appeal Suit is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017 rendered in O.S. No. 528/2015 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The appellants are defendants 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 in the Suit in O.S. No. 528/2015. The Suit in O.S. No. 528/2015 is for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's 1/3rd share in the Suit property. The Suit property is an extent of 2.51 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.740/2 and 743/3 in Chettipalayam Village, presently Madukkarai Taluk (Coimbatore South Taluk), Coimbatore District.

3. It is the case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff that the Suit property originally belonged to one Mrs. Ramakkal @ Varuthakkaal wife of Krishna Konar, the mother of plaintiff, by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 06.12.1948 registered as Document No. 1410/1948. It is stated in the plaint that the husband of Mrs. Ramakkal @ Varuthakkaal predeceased her and the mother of plaintiff also died intestate in the year, 1981, living behind her son by name Palanisammy and two daughters namely Karupathal, the plaintiff herein and Valliammal, the 5th defendant in the Suit.

4. The 1st defendant is the wife of Palanisamy the only son of Mr. Krishna Konar. Defendants 2 to 4 are the children of 1st defendant through Thiru. Palanisamy. The 5th defendant is the other daughter of Mrs. Ramakkal @ Varuthakkal. It is stated that the 6th defendant is the father in law of the 3rd defendant, the son of Palanisamy. It is admitted that based on the Power of Attorney document executed by defendants 1 to 4, the 6th defendant executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendants 7 and 8 before filing of the Suit. Stating that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share as daughter of Mrs. Ramakkal @ Varuthakkal, the Suit is filed.

5. Written Statement filed by the 3rd defendant was also adopted by 1st defendant. From the Written Statement, it is seen that the main defence which was taken by the 3rd defendant is that the plaintiff is not in joint possession and the Suit is barred by limitation. Since, the plaintiff kept quite all these years after the death of Mrs. Ramakkal @ Varuthakkal, it is contended that the Suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and lacks bona fides. It was suggested that the plaintiff ought to have filed the Suit for a declaration, challenging the Sale Deed in favour of defendants 7 and 8 within time as prescribed by the law of limitation. The 6th defendant filed the Written Statement stating that defendants 7 and 8 are the purchasers of the property and they are entitled to the Suit property.

6. The 8th defendant filed the Written Statement on the ground that defendants 7 and 8 are in possession and occupation of the Suit property from the date of purchase. It is to be noted that defendants 7 and 8 also raised a plea of limitation. Stating that possession of property is with the defendants 7 and 8 under the Sale Deed which was executed in its favour in 2006 through the Power of Attorney agent of defendants 1 to 4, they prayed for dismissal of the Suit as against them.

7. The Trial Court framed a specific issue and found that the Sale Deed in favour of defendants 7 and 8, is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff so far as the 1/3rd share of plaintiff and the 1/3rd share of 5th defendant in concerned as defendants 1 to 4 have no exclusive right. Though a plea of limitation was raised, no issue was framed by the Trial Court. However, it was considered by the Trial Court and found that the plaintiff had no knowledge of execution of Sale Deed under Ex.A10 in favour of defendants 7 and 8 and that she came to know about the alienation only after obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate just before filing the of the Suit in 2015. Since, there was no evidence available to show that the plaintiff had prior knowledge regarding the execution of Sale Deed, the Trial Court held that the Suit cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree the app