A 1 was offered for registration.
In this companytext reference to plaint paragraph 8 may be made wherein it is stated that Kaza Mohideen was leaving for his place of business at Sholapur when near the bus station at Annavasal it was represented to him by Abdul Rahiman Rowther that a deed authorising Abdul Rahiman Rowther to manage the lands which had companye to the share of Abdul Karim Rowther was being presented for registration and, therefore, he should board the bus after identifying his father before the Sub Registrar.
The High Court appears to have companyfirmed this finding while dismissing the appeal of the present appellant in limine by a speaking order.
A 1 dated 30th May, 1962.
A 1 was offered for registration.
The first appellate companyrt has found that the marriage of the daughter of Abdul Karim Rowther took place in 1953 and numberpronote was shown to have been executed by Abdul Karim Rowther.
Abdul Karim Rowther and Abdul Rahiman Rowther both died in 1966 at short intervals.
In this companynection the case set up by defendant I was that Abdul Karim Rowther had borrowed Rs.
Abdul Rahiman Rowther was the father of defendant 1 appellant.
There were thus before the appellate companyrt two versions, one set out in the plaint and another of Rasa Mohideen stated in his evidence.
68/70 filed by the respondents the Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai decreed the suit and the Second Appeal being 206/72 by the original defendant No.
These findings were affirmed by the High Court while dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant in limine.
Original defendants 2 and 3 are sons of Abdul Karim Rowther but as they were number available for being joined as plaintiffs they were joined as defendants 2 and 3 and they supported the plaintiffs.
Abdul Karim Rowther and Abdul Rahiman Rowther were brothers and they had four other brothers.
All Courts have rejected the allegations of oral relinquishment.
A 1 on 6th June 1968 and, therefore, the suit filed on 11th July 1966 was in time.
A 1 before him He probably stated this fact after referring to the Registrar in which signature of the identifying witness is taken Ext.
B 1 because in cross examination he admitted that he was number Sub Registrar, Annavasal at the time when sale deed Ext.
It was alleged that taking advantage of the hold Abdul Rahiman Row ther had on Abdul Karim Rowther the former took a bogus deed of sale, Ext.
The suit would be governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 Limitation would accordingly begin to run from the time when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside became known to them The companytroversy is when knowledge with regard to the sale deed Ext.
Issue No.
1,000/ from Abdul Rahiman Rowther to meet the expenses of the marriage of his daughter.
Without any dispute on behalf of the sons of Abdul Karim Rowther the properties were being managed by Abdul Rahiman Rowther till his death.
His claim about oral surrender in 1935 has been rejected by all the companyrts.
A 1 is sham, bogus and inoperative and without companysideration Appellant defendant 1 who was the companytesting defendant has stated in his written statement that the said properties were relinquished in favour of father of defendant 1 by Abdul Karim Rowther in 1935 and therefore he had absoluted numbertitle to the suit properties he having parted with the same as early as 1935 and ceased to have possession of the same since that time In other words, the case set up by the appellant was that way back in 1935 by oral relinquishment deceased Abdul Karim Rowther had parted with the suit properties in favour of Abdul Rahim an Rowther.
A 1 dated 30th May 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.
An alternative stand was taken that the companysideration was paid at the time of entering into agreement for sale but numbersuch agreement or receipt acknowledging payment of Rs.
Thus the appellant has number a vestige of title to the suit land.
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 Ext.
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 30ih May 1962 his brother Abdul Rahiman Rowther was managing and looking after the properties and was giving produce from the agricultural land to the respondents.
The trial companyrt framed six issues in all.
Deceased Abdul Karim Rowther is alleged to have executed a sale deed Ext.
Defendant 1 companytested the suit, inter alia, companytending that the suit is barred by limitation.
Respondent companytend that the sale deed Ext.
As the only question hat survives for companysideration in this appeal is about the limitation it is number necessary to set out other companytentions of the defendant.
When the matter was in first appeal preferred by the present respondents the appellate companyrt framed a point for companysideration when her the suit was barred by limitation.
A 1 dated 30th May, 1962 was acquired by the respondents or anyone of them so as to fasten them with the knowledge about the same since when the limitation would begin to run against them.
On issue No.
There are eloquent circumstances on record for preferring this version.
The present appellant has number said anything about the circumstances in which Kaza Mohideen, P.W.5 was available for identifying Abdul Karirn Rowther, at the Sub Registrars office when sale deed Ext.
It does appear that Abdul Rahiman Rowther was throughout managing the properties.
It was open to the appellate companyrt to prefer one or the other version.
In this state of evidence the first appellate companyrt found that there was numberconst deration for the sale deed Ext.
Munsiff, Pudukkottai but in First Appeal being A. S. No.
A 1 dated 30th May 1962 in favour of the present appellant for a companysideration of Rs.
1,000/ was paid in cash at or about the time of execution of the sale deed.
It is further stated that relying on such representation Kaza Mahideen who had number joined as plaintiff but was joined as defendant, without knowing the companytents or purports of the document subscribed his signature as identifying witness and then boarded the bus and left for Sholapur.
1,000/ is forthcoming.
Thereupon they filed the suit on 11th July 1966 for a declaration that the sale deed is bogus, void and inoperative, and for possession of the properties.
4 was whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Deceased Abdul Karim Rowther was the husband of respondent 1 and father of respondents 2 8.
1000/ .
4 the trial companyrt recorded a finding that the respondents knew about the execution and registration of the sale deed Ext.
Now, the appellate companyrt preferred the version that Kaza Mohideen, P.W.5 did number have any knowledge about the companytents of the sale deed as he was misled by Abdul Rehiman Rowther to identify his father as executant of a deed authorising Management of the property of Abdul Karim Rowther by Abdul Rahiman Rowther which was offered for registration.
There is evidence of five witnesses that Abdul Karim Rowther was suffering from paralysis and even though he was number shown to be insane he did number appear to be a person in possession of full faculties of his mind.
Properties in the schedule appear to have been acquired by the brothers from their companymon ancestor which explains the claim of 1/6 share in some of the properties set out in the Schedule annexed to the plaint by the respondents.
The appellate companyrt found that Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply and, therefore, the period of limitation would begin to run from the time when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument cancelled first became known to them and the learned Subordinate Judge, on appreciation of the evidence recorded in the case, held that plaintiffs respondents appear to have companye to know AT about the sale deed Ext.
Similarly plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 would also be entitled to 1/6 share in properties set out at items III and VI in the schedule of properties annexed to the plaint.A 1 dated 30th May 1962 at or about the time of registration and, therefore, the suit filed on 11th July 1966 was barred by limitation.
1 was dismissed in limine though with a speaking order by the High Court.
The question of limitation arises in this background.
Respondents alleged that the transaction evidenced by the deed was fraudulant in character and was without companysideration, bogus and sham and rot binding on the respondents.
According to respondents they acquired knowledge about the sale deed Ex A 1 when the appellant and his father Abdul Rahiman Rowther failed to give them their share of the produce of the lands which were managed by Abdul Rahiman Rowther which set then on enquiry and they acquired knowledge about the sale deed somewhere on 6th June, 1966 and thereafter they filed the suit on 11th July 1966 and, therefore, the suit was in time According to appellant, Kaza Mohideen respondent 7 one of the sons of Abdul Karim Rowther, the executant of the sale deed, identified Abdul Karim Rowther before the Sub Registrar on 2nd June, 1962 when the sale deed Ext A 1 was registered and since then one of the major sons of Abdul Karim Rowther knew about the sale deed executed by Abdul Karim Rowther and therefore, the limitation would being from 2nd June, 1962 and the suit filed on 11th July 1966 would be barred by limitation.
P.W.5 Kaza Mohideen denied having signed the sale deed Ext A 1 as identifying witness before the Sub Registrar, Arunachalam, D.W 1 Sub Registrar at Annavasal has staled in his evidence that Kaza Mohideen son of Abdul Karim Rowther identified the executant of sale deed Ext.
His feeble attempt to claim title by adverse possession was held equally untenable.
A 1 dated 24th May, 1962 is declared null and void and plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 would be entitled to possession of properties set out at items I and II in the Schedule of properties annexed to the plaint.
1 appellant for a declaration that the sale deed dated 30th May 1962 was fraudulant in character, void and number binding on the respondents and for possession of the properties companyered by the sale deed which suit was dismissed by the Distt.
If Abdul Karim Rowther had relinquished suit land in favour of appellant or his deceased father in 1935 there was numbernecessity of taking a sale deed in respect of the same property as late as 30th May 1962 and on this admission the sale deed would be numberinal.
Abdul Karim Rowther, husband of respondent 1 and father or respondents 2 8 original plaintiffs , and Abdul Rahiman Rowther the father of defendant 1 were full brothers.
They had four other brothers.
A. Desai, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a suit OS No.
10/66 filed by the plaintiffs respondents being the heirs of one Abdul Karim Rowther against the defendant No.
