DORAISAMI SERUMADAN Vs. NONDISAMI SALUVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have read the judgment of Sankaran Nair, J., White, C.J. and I agree.

(2.) The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs. Sankaran Nair, J.

(3.) The properties in suit belonged to the plaintiffs father who died in 1895. The plaintiffs are his only heirs and during their minority their mother as their guardian sold the properties to the defendants. The plaintiffs now seek to recover possession of them. The instrument of sale was executed in November 1895. At the date of the institution of the suit the first plaintiff was 23 years old and the second plaintiff 20. The plaintiffs case is that the suit is not barred by limitation as it was brought within three years of the second plaintiff s attaining majority and as the first plaintiff could not give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the second plaintiff. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation following the decision in Vigneswara v. Bapayya (1893) I.L.R., 16 Mad., 436. The learned Judges of this Court who heard the case differed in their opinion, Abdur Rahim, J., holding that the suit was barred and Sundara Ayyar, J., holding that the suit was barred so far as the first plaintiff was concerned and that it was not barred with reference to the claim of the second plaintiff. This is an appeal from the decision of Abdur Rahim, J., confirming the decrees of the Courts below.