- (1.) This appeal by special leave arises from a suit 0. S. No. 10 of 1966 filed by the plaintiffs-respondents being the heirs of one Abdul Karim rowther against the defendant 1 (appellant) for a declaration that the sale deed dated 30/05/1962 was fraudulent in character, void and not binding on the respondents and for possession of the properties covered by the sale deed which suit was dismissed by the District Munsiff, Pudukkottai but in first Appeal being A. S. No. 68 68 1970 filed by the respondents the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai decreed the suit and the second appeal being 206 of 1972 by the original defendant 1 was dismissed limine though with a speaking order by the High court.
(2.) Abdul Karim Rowther, husband of respondent 1 and father of respondents 2-8 (original plaintiffs) , and Abdul Rahiman Rowther the father of defendant 2 were full brothers. They had four other brothers. Respondents alleged that they had certain share in the properties set out in the schedule annexed to the plaint but as Abdul Karim Rowther was a man of weak intellect and was suffering from paralysis since some years prior to 30/05/1962 his brother Abdul Rahiman Rowther was managing and looking after the properties and was giving produce from the agricultural land to the respondents. It was alleged that taking advantage of the hold Abdul rahiman Rowther had on Abdul Karim Rowther the former took a bogus deed of sale, Ex. A-l dated 30/05/1962 by which Abdul Karim Rowther purported to sell his entire interest in the properties set out in the schedule annexed to the plaint in favour of defendant 1. Respondents alleged that the transaction evidenced by the deed was fraudulent in character and was without consideration, bogus and sham and not binding on the respondents. Abdul Karim Rowther and Abdul Rahiman Rowther both died in 1966 at short intervals. Soon after the death of Abdul Rahiman Rowther defendant 1 failed to give the share of the produce or income from the properties to the plaintiffs in April 1966. Respondents were put to enquiry as to what had happened when they learnt about the sale deed Ex. A-l dated 30/05/1962. Thereupon they filed the suit on 11/07/1966 for a declaration that the sale deed is bogus, void and inoperative, and for possession of the properties.
(3.) Defendant 1 contested the suit, inter alia, contending that the suit is barred by limitation. As the only question that survives for consideration in this appeal is about the limitation it is not necessary to set out other contentions of the defendant.;