A suit for declaration of title becomes barred by limitation if not filed within the statutory period following attainment of majority or the deed date, with adverse possession applying for valid claimants.

JUDGMENT :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession have filed the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.As per plaint averments, the suit schedule properties were the absolute properties of one Chellamuthu Chettiar by way of a registered sale deed in his favour dated 09.10.1911 which is marked as Ex.A1. He had died in the year 1930 intestate, leaving behind his three sons, Nagursamy Chettiar, Nagalingam Chettiar and Muthukamu Chettiar. It is further averred in the plaint that Nagursamy Chettiar and Muthukamu Chettiar have executed a registered release deed in favour of Nagalingam Chettiar on 23.11.1932 which is marked as Ex.A2. Thereafter, the suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties of Nagalingam Chettiar who had passed away in the year 1942 when the first plaintiff was five years old. Therefore, it devolved upon the first plaintiff and his three children who are arrayed as plaintiffs 2 to 4.

3.It is further averred in the plaint that the after execution of release deed on 23.11.1932, Nagursamy Chettiar and Muthukamu Chettiar have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 11.02.1949 which is marked as Ex.A3. This came to the knowledge of the plaintiff through their aunt Saraswathi Ammal in the year 1997. The plaintiffs had issued a legal notice on 04.02.1998 under Ex.A8 for which a reply was sent by the first defendant on 06.07.1998 under Ex.A9. According to the plaintiffs, their uncles do not have any right over the property and they have colluded with the first defendant and sold the property. The first defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The document dated 11.02.1949 is a void transaction. The uncle of the plaintiffs namely Nagursamy Chettiar and Muthukamu Chettiar are not entitled to act as guardian for the first plaintiff in view of the fact that his mother Sankarammal was alive. Therefore, the said transaction dated 11.02.1949 is a fraudulent transaction. Hence, he prayed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4.The first defendant had filed a written statement admitting the fact that the suit schedule properties were originally owned by Chellamuthu Chettiar as his joint family property. The defendants disputed the release deed executed by Nagursamy Chettiar and Muthukamu Chettiar on 23.11.1942 and claimed that it is a sham and nominal document and it never came into effect. According to the defendants, the said document is void in the eye of law. He further contended that the property did not belong to the first plaintiff alone but it was a joint family property consisting of paternal uncle, Nagursamy Chettiar and Muthukamu Chettiar.

5.The defendants had further contended that a portion of the property that was purchased by the first defendant under Ex.A3 was sold in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu. It was further contended that the other portion was sold to the second defendant on 26.03.1959 under Ex.A4. The portion in the possession of the Tamil Nadu Government has now been sub-divided as S.No.415/1A and the portion of the second defendant is sub-divided as S.No.415/1B. In such circumstances, without impleading the Government of Tamil Nadu as a party, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The defendants had further contended that the transaction dated 23.11.1932 is not a void transaction and there is no collusion between the v