ORDER : This Appeal Suit has been filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.08.2013 in O.S.No.123 of 2010, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The appellants herein and the 4th respondent have filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli against the 1st to 3rd respondent herein, for declaration of title of the suit property and also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent herein/D-1 to deliver the 'A' schedule property and with liberty to remove the construction and also direct the 2nd respondent herein/D-2 to deliver the possession of the 'B' schedule property and for future profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. The said suit was dismissed on 30.08.2013. Against the said dismissal, the plaintiff Nos.1,2 & 4 have preferred this present appeal suit. 3. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents placed on record. 4. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed this appeal to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.08.2013 in O.S.No.123 of 2010, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 5. This appeal suit has been filed on the ground that the Court below have erred in dismissed the suit without properly considering the issues framed and the evidences adduced by the appellants. The Court below have failed to see that the relief claimed in the suit that they are entitled to the suit property is as per the Will executed by Venkatachaladurai and the question of adoption is incidental and therefore Article 118 will not apply. 6. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.123 of 2010 and stated in the plaint that the suit properties and some other properties belonged to one P.M.Venkatachala Durai who was an advocate residing at Thuraiyur. He had a son by name Natarajan and had two daughters by name Vasantha and Janaki. The plaintiffs are the children of Natarajan. The said Natarajan was dead. During his life time, the said P.M.Venkatachala Durai had executed a Will in favour of his daughter Vasantha on 14.01.1962 and it is the last Will and it is unregistered. Thereafter, he died on 14.02.1962. The plaintiffs are the children of Natarajan. The said Natarajan was dead. During his life time, the said P.M.Venkatachala Durai had executed a Will in favour of his daughter Vasantha on 14.01.1962 and it is the last Will and it is unregistered. Thereafter, he died on 14.02.1962. According to the Will, he has settled the properties in favour of his second daughter Vasantha on condition that the property would be her absolute property if she has issue male or female and rather a limited estate only if she has no issue either male or female. In case she died issueless the property would go to the heirs of Natarajan. The said Vasantha Seetharaman died on 22.07.2009 issueless and no child was born to her. After the death of Vasantha, according to the terms of the Will the heirs of Natarajan will get the properties as Natarajan Predeceased her. The said Vasantha got life estate only and even she died issueless she alienated the proeprty to R-1 & R-2 herein/defendants 1 and 2. The R-1/D-1 mortgated the property with the R-3/D-3. The said Vasantha Seetharaman resided at United States of Americal till 2004 and thereafter she returned to India. In her absence by virtue of the power granted to one Rajasekaran who is the son of Vasantha's sister namely, Janaki the properties were alienated. After the death of Vasantha, the 1st appellant/1st plaintiff made a demand for delivery of possession but they refused. Hence, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.123 of 2020 for declaration. 7. The 1st respondent herein/D-1 has filed Written statement. It is stated in the written statement that there is no doubt by virtue of said Will Vasantha Seetharaman got the properties. The condition to the Will such that she should have issue either male or female, which was the desire of the testator was fulfilled as she adopted a girl by name Aarathi Lakshminarayanan. On 01.02.1993, the girl was taken on adoption and the adoption deed was registered. The adopted daughter is an issue of Vasantha Seetharaman. Therafter, she granted power of attorney to one Sai Rajasekaran and by virtue of said power of attorney the said Rajasekaran executed four sale deeds in favour of this defendant. Therafter, the defendant has obtained bank loan. Her possession in the suit property is lawful and it cannot be disturbed. The adopted daughter is an issue of Vasantha Seetharaman. Therafter, she granted power of attorney to one Sai Rajasekaran and by virtue of said power of attorney the said Rajasekaran executed four sale deeds in favour of this defendant. Therafter, the defendant has obtained bank loan. Her possession in the suit property is lawful and it cannot be disturbed. It is denied that the said Vasantha Seetharaman got only life estate. She has got right to alienate the property as she became absolute owner. The previous suit in O.S.No.94 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Hence, the suit was barred under Order 23, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. 8. The 2nd respondent herein/D-2 has filed Written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the execution of Will is admitted. In that Will the suit property was allotted to Vasantha Seetharaman on condition that those properties would be her absolute property, if she has issue male or female. In the absence of issues, the properties would go on to his son and his heirs and it is not mentioned in the Will that she should not adopt any child. Thereafter, on 01.02.1993 the said Vasantha Seetharaman adopted one Aarathi who is the daughter of one Lakshminarayanan and Mallika. Once adoption is made thereafter, Vasantha Seetharaman has became the absolute owner of the property. The plaintiffs and their father Natarajan are also aware of the above position. Thereafter, the said Vasantha Seetharaman has given a power to one Rajasekaran to deal with the properties as she was at America. The father of the plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit in O.S.No.91 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli and thereafter it was transferred to District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur and the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.94 of 1996. On 27.07.2001, the said suit was dismissed for default and therefter on 15.02.2002 it was restored. The said Natarajan has filed a petition in I.A.No.23 of 2003 dated 11.04.2003 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit with the same cause of action. The Court granted permission to withdraw the suit, but did not grant permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The said Natarajan has filed a petition in I.A.No.23 of 2003 dated 11.04.2003 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit with the same cause of action. The Court granted permission to withdraw the suit, but did not grant permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Since no appeal was preferred, the order became final. Against the same, the plaintiffs/appellants have filed the another suit with the same cause of action. Hence, the suit was barred by res judicata. The R-2/D-2 has purchased the suit property through the power of attorney holder of Vasantha Seetharaman on 26.03.1999 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,90,000/-. Thereafter, this defendant is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property for more than 17 years. At any event the R-2/D-2 has obtained title by right of adverse possession. 9. The 3rd respondent herein/D-3 has filed Written statement. It is stated in the written statement that he is not a necessary party to this suit. This defendant has gratned housing loan to the R-1/D-1 based on the legal opinion by their Panel Advocate in the year 2005. Prior to sanction of loan R-3/D-3 has not received any notice or intimation from the plaintiffs/appellants side as against the sanction of loan and the respondent is a Nationalised Bank and it always respect the order passed by the Court. 10. The two issues are to be discussed in the Appeal suit as follows: a. Whether the Vasantha Seetharaman had only limited estate as alleged by Appellant/Plaintiffs? b. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 11. The suit properties belonged to one P.M.Venkatachala Durai and he had executed a Will on 14.01.1962 was admitted by both the parties. The recitals of the will also admitted and Vasntha Seetharaman has no issues also admitted. 12. As per the condition in the Will, if the Vasantha Seetharaman has no issues then she can acquire limited estate. If she has issues then she can acquire absolute right over the suit scheduled properties. 13. The Vasantha Seetharaman had adopted a girl by name, Aarthi Lakshmi Narayanan on 01.02.1993 through a registered document. The learned counsel appring for the appellant contented that adopted daughter is not a issue as per the definition in Law Lexicon. If she has issues then she can acquire absolute right over the suit scheduled properties. 13. The Vasantha Seetharaman had adopted a girl by name, Aarthi Lakshmi Narayanan on 01.02.1993 through a registered document. The learned counsel appring for the appellant contented that adopted daughter is not a issue as per the definition in Law Lexicon. The said definition is extracted hereunder: “At common law an heir is he who is born in lawful wedlock, and upon whom the law casts the estate in lands, tenements, immediately on the death of the ancestor. ” As per this contention the issue in the will is only natural born issues. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.1, 2 relied upon the judgment reported in (2010) 15 SCC 125 in the case of Diyyala Gopala Krishna Murthy Vs. Pullagura Dhanalakshamma and Others. The paragraph No.5 is extracted hereunder: “ 5. In Hindu Law, an adopted son is exactly on the same legal footing as a natural son but with one distinction, namely; that for him the prohibited degrees of relationship for the purposes of marriage are on both sides, namely, his natural family as well as his adopted family. In all other respects an adopted son is exactly on the same footing as a natural son. Hence, we cannot agree with the view of the first appellate court and the High Court that an adopted son cannot be treated to be the natural son or issue.” 15. So, adoptive daughter is also an issue and entitled for all rights like a natural daughter. 16. The second issue is limitation. As per sec.58 of the Limitation Act suit for decleration should be within 3 years when the right to accrues. 17. In this case, when the right to sue accrues? The Vasanth Seetharaman adopted a daughter in the year 1993, from the date she became absolute owner. So, the limitation starts in the year 1993. This is not the case of the appellants that the adoption came to their knowledge after the death of Vasantha Seetharaman. 18. Already the father of Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permenant injunction restraining Vasantha Seetharaman not to alienate the suit properties in O.S.No. 91 of 1995, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Even, the suit in O.S.No.91 of 1995, Vasantha Seetharaman had filed written statement and stated about the adoption. 19. 18. Already the father of Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permenant injunction restraining Vasantha Seetharaman not to alienate the suit properties in O.S.No. 91 of 1995, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Even, the suit in O.S.No.91 of 1995, Vasantha Seetharaman had filed written statement and stated about the adoption. 19. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs neither quetioned the adoption nor alienation through power agent in the year 1994, 1999 & 2001. 20. The contention of the Appellants is that Right of sue accrues only on the death of Vasantha Seetharaman. But, their father already filed the suit in O.S.No.91 of 1995. He has also filed a Petition to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn, but, liberty was not granted. 21. Therefore, from the above discussion, the Trial court has dismissed the suit on two grounds (i), Vasantha Seetharaman has issue and acquired absolute right in the property (ii) the suit is barred by limitation. 22. Hence, this Court has no valid reason to interfere with the findings passed by the Court below. 23. Finally, the appeal suit is dismissed with Costs by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.08.2013 in O.S.No.123 of 2010, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.