JUDGMENT :

Amitava Roy, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.4.2015 rendered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in SA (MD) No. 626 of 2011, whereby it has directed them to restore the property involved to the respondent No. 1 within a period of two months unconditionally and further to mutate it in his name in all relevant records. This verdict has reversed the pronouncement in Appeal Suit No. 125 of 2006 by which the suit being O.S. No. 299 of 2005, instituted by respondent No.1, had been dismissed. Incidentally, the suit had been decreed by the Trial Court.

3. We have heard Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

4. The indispensable facts essential for comprehending the controversy need be gathered at the outset from the pleadings in the suit, in which the present appellants were the defendants along with respondent No. 2.

5. According to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, the suit property bearing Survey Field No. 199/2 ad-measuring Ac. 4.59 cents and located at Villag