IMPORTANT POINT
A declaratory suit other than the declarations mentioned in Articles 56 and 57 of the Limitation Act. 1963 should be filed within a period of limitation mentioned in Article 58 of the said Act.

A. Selvam, J.—Challenge in this Second Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1997 passed in Appeal Suit No. 291 of 1996 by the Principal District Court, Kamarajar (Virudhunagar) District at Srivilliputhur, wherein the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1996 passed in Original Suit No. 42 of 1996 by the Principal District Munsif Court. Srivilliputhur are reversed.

2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No. 42 of 1996 on the file of the Trial Court for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant.

3. The nubble of the plaint can be stated like thus:

The suit property is situate in Ward No.4, Rajapalayam Town and Rajapalayam Village. The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs’ father by name Thangamani @ Ramamoorthy Nadar. For better appreciation, with regard to juxtaposition of the suit property a plaint plan has been annexed with. The suit property has been shown as ‘a, b, c, d’ in the plaint plan. The portion which has been described as ‘e, f, g, h’ is a tomb. The plaintiffs are brothers and sisters. The father of the plaintiffs by name Thangamani @ Ramamoorthy Nadar and his father by name Narayanan Nadar have jointly executed the sale-deed dated 30.3.1946 in favour of the defendant with regard to the properties situate on eastern, western and southern side for a sum of Rs. 4,937/- and they retained the suit property which has been shown as ‘a, b, c, d’ in the plaint plan. On 2.2.1984 the plaintiffs have issued a notice to the defendant so as to permit them to effect repairs in tomb. The defendant has given a reply notice dated 7.2.1984, wherein it has been stated to the effect that the plaintiffs cannot effect repairs and subsequently on 16.2.1984 the plaintiffs have given a legal notice to the defendant and thereafter the father of the plaintiffs has instituted Original Suit No. 402 of 1986 against the defendant for the reliefs of perpetual injunction, wherein an order of status- quo has been passed in I.A. No. 437 of 1987. In Original Suit No. 402 of 1986 the defendant has filed a written statement on 24.9.1987, wherein it has been specifically stated that the plaintiffs are not having title to the suit property and the defendant has had enjoyed the same for more than a statutory period and thereby prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. The defendant is estopped from claiming title to the suit property. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred that the defendant has purchased properties under a registered sale-deed dated 30.3.1946. But there is no plaint schedule property on ground as mentioned in the plaint. The defendant has had enjoyed the suit property for more than a statutory period and thereby prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. It is false to say that the defendant has written several letters to the father of the plaintiffs and thereby requested him to donate the suit property in favour of the defendant. The suit is barred by limitation on the basis of latches and acquiescence on the part of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs has withdrawn Original Suit No. 402 of 1986 with a liberty to file a fresh suit and necessary permission has been given wherein a period of limitation has been prescribed. But the present

suit has been instituted beyond the period of limitation fixed thereon and therefore, the present suit is not legally maintainable and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs as appellants have prefer