P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff in a suit for possession are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit property which lies on the side of a public road belonged to the father of the fourth defendant. According to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of the suit property by its owner on an oral lease arrangement. The fourth defendant was the owner of the property on the west of the suit property. On 03/06/1993, the plaintiff was evicted from the suit property by the Public Works Department of the State on the premise that the same is a road poramboke. According to the plaintiff, she was evicted from the suit property at the instance of the fourth defendant. It is also her case that immediately after the eviction, the fourth defendant had enclosed the suit property with his property on its west. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the suit property is not a road poramboke and that the third defendant had no authority to evict her. It is also alleged by the plaintiff that the fourth defendant had subsequently transferred the property in his possession including the suit property to the fifth defendant. The suit was filed, in the ci