LINGA MUNISAMI REDDY Vs. PSKOINDASAMI NAICKEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was brought for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the properties in Schedules A, B and C and for possession of the same with mesne profits. The properties in suit were joint family properties belonging to three brothers Linga Subba Reddi, Linga Rama Reddi and Linga Chenga Reddi, who were sons of Linga Pola Reddi. The plaintiff to son of the third son, Linga Chenga Reddi. Of the other two brothers, Rama Reddi died without male issue, and Subba Reddi, the elder brother, had one son Munisami Reddi, who died unmarried in 1909. All the properties in A Schedule including the family house were Sold to 1 defendant for RS. 400 in 1898 under Exhibit IX by Linga Rama Reddi Munisami Redi the son of Linga Subba Reddi. The properties in B Scheduled were sold to 1 defendant in 1903 under Exhibit XXIII by 3rd defendant Muniammal, who is a doughter of Linga Suba Reddi. The plaintiff, who is the son of Linga Chenga Reddi, is the sole surviving male member of the family. The lower Court dismissed the suit as being time-barred without deciding the other issues. After the sale-deed Exhibit IX was executed, the 1 defendant who purchased the property leased it again his vendors, but in 1901 by a letter, Exhibit XIII, they relinquished their cultivation over some of the fields, and in the following year (1902) they renewed their cultivation of some fields for Fasli 1312 only. See Exhibits XIV and XIV-a.

(2.) The question is whether the defendants have made out a title by adverse possess so as to bar the plaintiff's present Suit. If the suit were brought against co-parceners to enforce a right to share in the co-parcenary property, Art. 137 of the Limitation Act would apply and it would be necessary to prove that the plaintiff had been excluded from the joint family property to his knowledge.

(3.) The plaintiffs father went and lived for some time at Alapakkam Kandugai, while his brothers lived in the family house at Veppaguntareddipalayam, in which village the suit Lands are situated. Possession in the present case not being with co-parceners but with alienees. I am of opinion that Art. 144 is the Art. applicable to the case. See Bhavrao V/s. Rakhmin 23 B. 137 : 12 Ind. Dec.(N.S.) 91(F.B.).