PULAPPATTA KUTHIRAVATTATH KOTTAYIL NALLAPPADA NAIR Vs. CHAMI MANNADIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal was first heard by Krishna swami Nayudu J. who considered it necessary that it should be heard by a Bench in view of the important question raised in the case.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff in O. 6. No. 23 of 1945 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat. He is the second stani, of Kuthiravattath Swarupam. He succeeded to the stanom on 17-5-1942 on the death of one Appu Thamban. Appu Thamban had succeeded Kunhunni Thamban in 1927 when the latter became the first stani. The suit was for recovery of possession of certain items of property attached to the second stanoin which were outstanding on a kanom demise with Anyappa Mannathil tarwad. The properties were alienated by Kunhunni Thamban by document Ex. D. 2, dated 28-1-1922, by way of possessory mortgage in favour of one Kartyayani Amma. The appellant alleged that the said alienation was not binding oh him as it was not executed for any purpose valid and binding on the stanom. There were two main defences, (1) that the alienation was valid and binding on the stanom, and (2) that the suit was barred by limitation. Both the trial Judge and the District Judge on appeal found that the alienation was not valid and binding on the stanom but that the suit was barred by limitation. They applied Art, 144, Limitation Act, to the suit.

(3.) The only question which falls for decision is whether the suit is barred by time. The material dates are 28-1-1922, the date of the execution of the impugned mortgage, 1927, when Appu Thamban became the second stanl in succession to Kunhinni Thamban, and 17-5-1942, the date on which the appellant became the second stani. The suit was filed on 2-6-1945. It was not contended before us that any article other than Article 144 applied to the case. The only contention of the appellant was that the respondents' possession must be deemed to have become adverse to him only on and from 17th May 1942. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent was that possession became adverse from 1927 when Appu Thamban succeeded to the stanom. In support of the appellant's contention the decision in -- 'P. V. Chattan Rajs v. Ramainvarma', AIR.. 1915 Mad 217 (A), was relied upon. Before we deal with that decision, it may be useful to set out certain facts relating to the nature of a stanom in Malabar, its main features and incidents.