Sukramania Mudali and Others vs Kuppammal

The decision in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 is exactly in point. At this stage we are not required to examine the averments in

the plaint and to say whether plaintiff can succeed in the face of the deed she had executed. The plaint sets up a case of fraud, and states that the

defendants were not given any present interest in the property. The cause of action is stated to be defendants'' unlawfully taking possession of the

property. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the necessity for suing to set aside the sale-deed arose on the attempt to take unlawful possession,

which event happened within three years of the suit. The decision in Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 follows an earlier ruling of this

Court in Sundaram v. Sithammal 3 M.L.J. 144, which has been accepted as good law in Vithai v. Hari 2 Bom. L.R. 638; the decision of the

Judicial Committee in Janki Kunwar v. Ajit Singh 14 I.A. 148 : Rafique and Jackson''s P.C. No. 99, has been considered in the Madras and

Bombay cases. Our attention has not been drawn to any case in which Singarappa v. Talari Sanjivappa 15 M.L.J. 228 has not been accepted. We

must, therefore, dismiss the appeals with costs.