JUDGMENT

M. FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment ,and decree dated the 9th October, 1973 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Letters Patent Appeal No. 78 of 1969.

2. The appellant was the first defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1959 in the Munsiffs Court Chingleput: The respondents are the legal representatives of Munishbba Reddi, the plaintiff therein. That suit was instituted on 11-2-1959 for recovery of possession of the suit property with mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 7-11-1960. The first. appellate Court by the revised judgment dated the 5th August, 1961 in A.S. No. 21 of 1961 reversed the decree. The second appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the High Court in S.A. No. 426 of 1965 on 31-1-1969. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the plaintiff.

3. It is necessary to set out few facts for the purpose of this appeal. The suit property having an extent of 13 acres and 42-1/2 cents originally belonged to one Dasu Reddi. The conveyed possession of the land to one Varada Reddi under an oral agreement of sale on 10-7-1946. A deed of sale was drawn up on 1-7-7-1947, but Dasu Reddi died before it could, be registered. Thereafter his sons Rajaram Reddi and Ramalinga Reddi executed Ex. A-1 sale deed in favour of Munisubba Reddi on 6-10-1949. Varada Reddi, aggrieved, instituted O.S. No. 78 of 1949 against Munisubba Reddi and his vendors for specific performance of the contract for sale, asserting his possession in pursuance of the agreement dated 10-7-1946. Varada Reddi died pending the suit. Muthukrishna Reddi was impleaded as his legal representative. That suit was decreed in his favour on 13-12-1952. The decree became final, but was not executed.

4. In the present suit the plaintiff Munisubba Reddi alleged that he was put in possession of the land by Muthukrishna Reddi after the said decree under an arrangement evidenced by Ex.A.4 dated 12-12-1955 and while in possession, the defendants Achal Reddi and others trespassed into the property in 1956. Achal Reddi contested the suit denying the petitioners title and the alleged trespass and claiming that Muthukrishna Reddi had orally transferred his rights and conveyed possession to him for valuable consideration.

5. The trial Court in granting the petitioner a decree for possession found that the plaintiffs title under the sale deed of 1949 as against his vendors was made perfect and title did not pass to Muthukrishna Reddi as he did not choose to execute the decrese and the petitioner was in possession within 12 years prior to the suit. It was found that the first defendant Achal Reddi has no title to the suit property and that he is not in possession of the same. The first appellate Court by the judgment dated 5-8-1964 rendered after the remand considered the question of title as well as possession and held:

"If Muthukrishna Reddi had enforced the decree in O.S. No. 76/1949 for specific performance against the plaintiff and his vendors, that would have put an end to the title of the plaintiff under Ex.A. 1. As already stated, the decree was allowed to lapse leaving the title of the plaintiff under Ex.A. 1 unaffected. The title that vested in the plaintiff on 6-6-1949 continued to remain with him thereafter for the above reasons. As against this, the defence contention that the Ist defendant under an oral agreement became the owner of the properties cannot stand. My finding, therefore, is that the plaintiff has title to the properties under Ex. A-1.

The learned Judge, however, found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land in 1955 and the plaintiff having neither proved possession nor dispossession at any time was not entitled to a decree.

6. In S.A. No. 426 of 1965 these concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court on the question of plaintiffs title had not been challenged. The only question raised therei