JUDGMENT

Raman, J.

Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was one for declaration and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. Originally there were 4 defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the suit the 2nd defendant Sri K.Mahadevan died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional defendants 5 to 7. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, against which the present appeal is filed.

2. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal is (i)

whether the plaint schedule properties are co-parcenary properties and if so, whether the plaintiffs acquired right by birth and hence available for partition, (ii) whether the right if any of the plaintiffs extinguished by the release deed ( Ext.A5) executed by the 4th defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, (III) whether the suit is barred by limitation and (iv) whether defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 perfected their title by adverse possession.

3. The material averments as gathered from the plaint and the written statement filed by the parties which are relevant for answering the above questions may be briefly stated as follows:

Plaint A schedule property consists of an extent of 10.08 acres.

Plaint B schedule propert