Full Judgment
1. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal, viz., (i) whether the suit is time-barred, and (ii) whether the karar (BB) is binding 6n the plaintiff's.
2. As to the first question, the suit was brought on the 6th October 1891 to set aside the karar, dated 30th May 1878, and to recover, for the benefit of the tarwad, possession with mesne profits of the properties, the subject of the karar.
3. The plaintiffs are members of the tarwad called Thayattum house and were minors at the date of BB, which purports to be a compromise executed in favour of the ninth, tenth and thirteenth defendants by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the mothers of the plaintiff's. Defendants 4 to 8 are also members of plaintiffs' tarwad; of them fourth defendant was a major at the date of BB and consented to it. Defendants 5 to 8, who were then minors, attained, majority more than three years prior to the suit and never attempted to get the karar set aside. It is contended for the appellants that their right to bring this suit is in the nature of an individual right, and is saved by Section 7 of the Limitation Act for three years after attainment of majority. As pointed out in Seshan v. Rajagopala I.L.R. 13 Mad. 236 and Vigneswara v. Bapayya I.L.R. 16 Mad. 436 Section 7 cannot apply to a case in which there are also majors having a common right whose suit would be barred. The fact of the suit being brought by the minors alone does not affect the principle of the decision in the above cases. We think, therefore, the Subordinate Judge is right in holding the suit to be time-barred.
4. We also consider his decision to be right on the merits. The arguments of appellant's Counsel do not satisfy us that the Judge is in error in holding that a compromise of a doubtful claim made by the adult members of a tarwad bona fide and in the interest of the tarwad is binding on the minor members. There is evidence that the claim set up by ninth defendant to the karnavanship of the tarwad was not altogether devoid of foundation as shown by the Subordinate Judge in paras. 19 and 20 of his judgment.
5. The evidence discloses no trace of fraud or collusion between the parties to the compromise, Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are plaintiffs' own mothers and they were assisted by second plaintiff's father and also by a vakil of the family.
6. We dismiss the appeal with costs.