S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 10.06.2026 DELIVERED ON : 10.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1542 of 2021 T.K.Ramachari (Died) 1.Subadra 2.Janardanan 3.Muthulakshmi 4.Anusooya 5.Santhi 6.Varalakshmi 7.Ramesh Babu 8.S.Padmavathi ... Appellants Vs. T.V.Namperumal (Died) 1.N.Sulochana 2.N.Meerabai 3.N.Ranibai 4.N.Mohan Raj 5.N.Prabhakaran 6.N.Venkatraman 1/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 7.N.Ramesh 8.N.Sathyanarayanan 9.N.Muralidharan ... Respondents P RAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019 in A.S.No.236 of 2007, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.2451 of 1996, on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli and allow the Second Appeal. For Appellants : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar For Respondents 1 to 3 : No appearance For Respondent No.9 : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan JUDGMENT The defendants, who suffered concurrently before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are the appellants in the present Second Appeal. 2.The Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on 02.03.2021, on the following two substantial questions of law, both of which relate to the law of limitation and the entitlement of the 2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 plaintiffs to institute the suit: “a) Are the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit ignoring the admitted and established facts, that from 10.07.1964, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in their own right and by constructing a house (exhibit B2, exhibit B4 & exhibit B5), openly in hostile manner to the interest of the plaintiff or the alleged trust he claims to represent, which clearly proves their case of adverse possession and also bars the present suit filed after 12 years? b) Is the conclusion of the Courts below that limitation will start to run only from the disposal of the earlier suit by the Honourable High Court in exhibit A5, sustainable in law, as the earlier proceedings, was not for recovery of possession and whether such a conclusion is sustainable in view of the legal principle that mere pendency of a suit or proceedings will not arrest the mere running of limitation as enunciated under Section 9 of the Limitation 3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 Act?” 3.I have heard Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the ninth respondent. 4.The brief facts that are necessary for decision in the above Second Appeal are as hereunder: 4.1.According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to Parakalaramanujakoodam Paghalpathu Rappathu Trust and the plaintiff is managing the properties belonging to the Trust. The first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff, as Managing Trustee, filed a suit in O.S.No. 749 of 1973, on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and in the said suit, the first defendant in the present proceedings was arrayed as the 34th defendant. The suit was filed to declare the title of the Trust. The present first defendant resisted the suit stating that he is a bonafide purchaser for valid consideration as early as on 10.07.1964. The Trial Court came to the conclusion in the earlier proceedings that the property belongs to the Trust and the first defendant herein is a trespasser. 4.2.The first defendant challenged the same by way of First 4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 Appeal in A.S.No.1070 of 1975. The appeal along with a connected appeal was dismissed on 02.09.1983. The first defendant unsuccessfully challenged the findings in L.P.A.No.5 of 1984, before this Court. The plaintiff therefore, claiming that the suit property belongs to the Trust and the issue has become final, sought for recovering possession of the suit property from the first defendant and for mesne profits. The suit was resisted by the first defendant disputing the claim of the plaintiff and contending that the first defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, since superstructure was put up by him. He would also contend that the suit has been filed belatedly and plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Pending trial, the first defendant died and the defendants 2 to 8 were brought on record as his legal representatives. 4.3.Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exhibits A.1 to A.11 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Exhibits B.1 to B.6 were marked. 4.4.The Trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and decreed the suit as prayed for, as against which, the defendants preferred A.S.No.236 of 2007, before the Sub Court, 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 Tiruchirappalli. Pending the appeal, sole plaintiff died and his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 2 to 10. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that when the first defendant has suffered up to this Court in LPA proceedings and the title of the Trust has been confirmed, the plaintiff was entitled to seek recovery of possession. As regards limitation, the First Appellate Court held that the suit was filed within 12 years from the dismissal of the LPA by the High Court in Ex.A.7 and therefore, it was very much in time and cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. 5.Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned Counsel for the appellants would state that the Courts below have wrongly calculated the period of limitation and have also failed to notice that when the first defendant was arrayed as a defendant even in the earlier suit in O.S.No.749 of 1973, no relief having been sought against him, there is a bar of Order II Rule 2 of CPC as well. The primordial contention of Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, is that the limitation clock once starts ticking cannot stop in the interregnum period and merely because the first defendant was unsuccessful in collateral proceedings up to this Court, it will not save limitation for the plaintiff to seek recovery of possession. Though Mr.H.Lakshmi 6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 Shankar has also raised various other contentions, considering the fact that the appeal has been admitted only on the above two substantial questions of law, which revolve on the aspect of limitation, I am not delving further into the other arguments and contentions put forth by Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar. 6.In support of his submissions, Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, has relied on the following four decisions: 1) Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala and others, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 57; 2) N.S.Spance Vs. D.S.Kanagarajan and another, reported in 2005 2 L.W. 470; 3) Rajender Singh and others Vs. Santa Singh and others, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 705; 4) A.Rukumani and others Vs. Gopalaswamy and others, reported in 1993 2 MLJ 598. 7.Per contra, Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, learned Counsel for the contesting ninth respondent would contend that the Courts below have concurrently and rightly decreed the suit for recovery of possession and such findings not being perverse, cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of CPC. Insofar as the question 7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 of limitation, Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, would state that the suit was filed on 07.12.1992 and when the LPA filed by the first defendant was admittedly dismissed on 22.12.1989, the suit was clearly within time and it is saved by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. He would also state that limitation is to be calculated only from the date of finality of decree in O.S.No.749 of 1973 and not from the date of purchase made by the first defendant, who admittedly entered into the property only as a tenant. 8.In support of his submissions, Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, has relied on the following decisions: 1) Charles (Died) Vs. Leela, reported in 2024 6 CTC 266; 2) M.Ganesa Reddiar & others Vs. C.Krishnasamy Raju, reported in 2008 5 MLJ 144; 3) Saroop Singh Vs. Banto, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 330; 4) Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak Vs. Somnath Muljibjhai Nayat, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 3761; 5) Briji Narayan Shukla (Died) through Lts. Vs. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (Died) through Lrs. And others, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 590; 6) Veeramuthu Vs. Puttalayee, reported in 1997 2 CTC 8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 245. 9.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 10.As already stated hereinabove, the only question that begs an answer is as to whether the suit has been instituted within the period of limitation. The title of the plaintiff Trust has been upheld in the earlier proceedings upto LPA proceedings before this Court and therefore, the issue of entitlement of the plaintiff to recover possession, save the issue of limitation is not in dispute. As already referred, the suit was filed on 07.12.1992. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent / plaintiff that the LPA filed by the first defendant ended against the first defendant with a dismissal only on 22.12.1988. It is therefore, his contention that even in terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which permits filing of the suit for recovery of possession within 12 years, the present suit is well within time. It is however, the argument of Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar that the pendency of the appeal or LPA proceedings will not save limitation and atleast after the decree in O.S.No.749 of 1773, on 23.09.1973, the suit ought to have been filed, in time. 9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 11. A few further facts may be relevant to adjudicate the issue of limitation. The plaint in O.S.No.749 of 1773, has been exhibited before the trial Court as Ex.A.1. Admittedly, the first defendant has been arrayed in the said suit as the 34th defendant. On a reading of the plaint, it is seen that the first defendant was impleaded pursuant to an order in I.A.No.309 of 1976 dated 14.06.1976 and curiously, no relief was prayed for against the 34th defendant. In the suit, the reliefs sought for were to declare that the suit property belongs to the private family Trust of Parakalaramanujakoodam Paghalpathu Rappathu Charities, for a permanent injunction restraining the fifth defendant from interfering with the management of the suit properties by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 and also significantly, for a decree for recovery of possession of the 'C' schedule property from the fifth defendant. At paragraph No.13-A, after amendment and impleadment of the 34th defendant, the plaintiff has stated as follows: “13A) On account of the newly impleaded 34th defendant claiming title to a portion of the suit property bearing Door No.23 under the sale deed dated 10.07.64 to bring about a binding adjudication of the matters in controversy in the suit he is impleaded as a party 10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 herein” (amended as per order in I.A.301/76)” 12.Therefore, even on the date on which the first defendant was impleaded as a defendant in the suit, the plaintiff was conscious of the fact that the 34th defendant was claiming title to property bearing Door No.33 under a sale deed dated 10.07.1964. Despite the same, the plaintiff has not chosen to seek any relief against the 34th defendant, having chosen to implead the 34th defendant and also make such allegations against him in the plaint. It is not as if the plaintiff did not have a cause of action for seeking the relief of recovery of possession on the said date. As already referred to, the plaintiff was wise enough to seek for recovery of possession from the fifth defendant, apart from other reliefs. The interest of the 34th defendant in the said suit and the first defendant herein was clearly adverse to the interest of the plaintiff, even in the year 1976. However, for reasons best known to the plaintiff, no relief was sought for against the 34th defendant ie.,first defendant in the present suit. In such circumstances, merely because the said decree was challenged by the first defendant herein by preferring an appeal and also an LPA in L.P.A.No.5 of 1984, I do not see how the plaintiff's hands were in any manner tied from initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery of possession from the first 11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 defendant. 13.Coming to the case law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nazir Mohamed's case held that decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property and if a plaintiff deserves to establish that the defendant's possession was permissive and he fails in such attempt, then it can be presumed that the possession was adverse, unless there is evidence available to the contrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the maxim 'possession follows title' is at best limited to cases where the defendant does not admit to actual and exclusive occupation of the plaintiff, like cases where the disputed properties in open space is accessible to all and presumption that possession must be deemed to follow title arises only where there is definite proof of possession by any one else. However, when it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession, then suit for recovery of possession would be governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 3 bars the institution of any suit after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the Court is obliged to dismiss a suit filed after the expiry of the period of limitation, even if the plea of limitation has not been 12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 taken in defence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further referred to Articles 64 & 65 of Part-V of the Limitation Act, pertaining to suits relating to immovable property and held that when the defendant was in possession for over 28 years on the date of institution of the suit, the High Court was in error in reversing the finding of the First Appellate Court in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. 14.This Court in N.S.Spance's case, held that mere pendency of a suit would not have the power of stopping the period of limitation. 15.In A.Rukmani's case, this Court held following the Division Bench of this Court in Venkatasubramania Vs. Sivagurunatha reported in AIR 1938 Mad.60, that adverse possession of an alienee starts from the moment the alienee is without lawful title, ie., the date of transfer, in a case of void transfer. 16.In Rajender Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that continued illegal possession would also ripen into a legally enforceable right after the prescribed period of time has 13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 lapsed and that it would mature into a right, due to inaction and not due to the action of the injured party, who can approach a Court of appropriate jurisdiction to redress, by a suit to regain possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that such relief against the wrong doer must be sought within the time prescribed in the Limitation Act. 17.Coming to the decisions that have been relied on by Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan, in Charles's case, this Court held that when plaintiffs sought for recovery of possession claiming title based on prior judgment, the defendants are not entitled to assert title and claim adverse possession. Though there is no quarrel with regard to the ratio laid down in this case, in the present case, having had clear and definite notice of an adverse interest claimed by the first defendant even in the earlier suit proceedings in O.S.No.749 of 1973, the plaintiff has slept over his rights and in such circumstances, the bar of limitation would stare at the face of the plaintiff. 18.In Ganesa Reddiar's case, this Court held that a person who takes a plea of ownership based on title cannot claim adverse possession. Again, the ratio laid down in this decision is a well 14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 settled legal principle, over which I cannot have any quarrel. However, we are now concerned only with the issue of limitation and not with the plea of adverse possession. Hence, this decision is of no avail to the facts of the present case. 19.In Saroop Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 65 would apply to a case where the defendant resisted the suit claiming adverse possession and that starting point of limitation would not commence from the right of ownership but only from the date of defendant's right becoming adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. Even applying this ratio, as already discussed hereinabove, even in 1976, while amending the plaint, the plaintiff was conscious of the adverse interest claimed by the first defendant and hence, the suit filed after dismissal of the LPA cannot be taken advantage of by the plaintiff to claim that the suit is well within time. 20.In Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak's case also the very same ratio laid down in Saroop Singh's case was reiterated. 21. Briji Narayana Shukla's case was relating to entitlement of a tenant to plead adverse possession. As already 15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 stated and at the risk of repetition, this Second Appeal is being tested on the substantial question of law relating to law of limitation alone and hence, this decision is of no value addition to decide the present Second Appeal. 22.In Veeramuthu's case relating to the plea of adverse possession, this Court held that a decree in a suit for declaration of title and injunction would break the continuity of adverse possession and would not entitle the person in possession to claim perfection of title by adverse possession. This decision also is not on the point of limitation with which, I am presently confined with. 23.For all the foregoing reasons, having found that the plaintiff was put on notice about the adverse claims made by the first defendant, having purchased the property in 1964, atleast in the year 1976, when the plaintiff voluntarily chose to implead the first defendant herein as 34th defendant in the said suit and also amend the plaint, making allegations against the first defendant, the limitation clock started ticking right then onwards and the mere fact that the suit was decreed, no relief was claimed against the 34th defendant / first defendant herein and that the appeal filed by the first defendant challenging the findings though no relief was 16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 granted against the first defendant unsuccessfully up to this Court, will not save limitation for seeking recovery of possession from the first defendant. Unfortunately, the Courts below have held that the suit is not barred by limitation, merely because it has been filed within a period of three years from the date of dismissal of the L.P.A.No.5 of 1984, filed by the first defendant. The findings are clearly perverse and against the well settled legal principles relating to law of limitation. Hence, I am constrained to allow this Second Appeal, answering the substantial questions of law both 1 & 2 in favour of the appellants. 24.In fine, this Second Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.236 of 2007 dated 22.02.2019, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2451 of 1996 dated 19.09.2006, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, are set aside and the suit in O.S.No.2451 of 1996, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.07.2026 17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MR To 1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 P.B.BALAJI, J. MR PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN S.A.(MD)No.97 of 2021 10.07.2026 19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis