HAJARUMMAL Vs. SUHARA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question argued in this case is one of limitation and prescription; and to understand the contention a few facts may be noted.

(2.) A Muhammadan by name Ahamed Kunju died in Karkatakam 1112 leaving his wife, the 9th defendant, and his children, the plaintiffs, and another child who died subsequently. The 1st defendant is the wife of the brother of Ahammed Kunju. Scarcely a year after the death of Ahamed Kunju his widow executed the sale deed Ex. P 3 in Mithunam 1113 regarding the suit properties left by him in favour of his brother, i. e., the husband of the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 9th defendant married another person and left the family. In 1121 the husband of the 1st defendant transferred the suit properties under Ext. P 4 in the name of the 1st defendant. On the basis of this document the 1st defendant executed Exx. P 5 to P 8, Ex. P 5 of 1950 being in favour of stranger and the other documents in the name of relations like daughters of the 1st defendant. The suit, which gave rise to the appeal, was filed by the plaintiffs, after they attained majority, for setting aside Ex. P 3. It was contended before the lower court that the suit was barred by limitation and adverse possession. This plea has been rejected and defendants 1, 2 and 4 have come up in appeal.

(3.) The only question argued before me is, as already indicated, the question of limitation and prescription. The contention is that since Ex. P 3 was in 1113 and possession having also passed under that document, the rights of the minors are barred by adverse possession for over 12 years. It may be mentioned that the suit was filed only in 1956. After some discussion before me the contention has finally boiled down to this. The 1st plaintiff attained majority more than 3 years prior to the institution of the suit and therefore her rights are, at any rate, barred. Regarding the 2nd plaintiff, if she is found less than 21 years of age at the time of filing the suit, her rights will not be affected, and if it is found that she is more than 21, her rights will also be barred. This is the short point argued before me.