- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the unsuccessful defendant-appellant, arising out of the following facts- The defendant-appellant was the owner of twenty shares out of seventy shares in a house. He sold his share to certain persons. The plaintiff-respond ents filed a pre-emption suit and obtained a pre-emption decree in 1948. The plain tiff-respondents then obtained symbolical Possession in 1949. They filed the pre sent suit for possession against the defendant.
(2.) THE defendant-appellant con tested the suit and raised the plea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to posses sion. The main ground on which the suit appears to have been contested was that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by twelve years rule of limitation, although no specific plea seems to have been taken in the written statement. On account of there being no specific plea in the written statement, no issue was framed about limitation. However, it appears that in the trial court the issue of limitation was pressed and was repelled by the trial court. The issue of limitation was also raised in appeal by the defendant. The lower appellate court was of the opinion that no plea of limitation was taken in the written statement and. as such it could not be sustained. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied, the defend ant-appellant has filed this second appeal.;