This appeal is preferred by 1st defendant in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, with an alternative prayer for recovery of possession of the property on the strength of title. The plaintiff Devaswom represented by its Manager is the contesting respondent.

2. Pending appeal, the sole appellant died. Interlocutory applications have been filed to condone delay in filing an application to set aside the abatement and to file an application for impleading the legal representatives. The plaintiff/respondent opposed the application on the ground that only one affidavit is filed in support of three applications, which is not permitted by law. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1986, and the second appeal was filed in 1996, notwithstanding the shortcomings in the procedural aspects, I allow the petitions and supplemental appellants 2 and 3 are impleaded. Regarding propriety of the proceedings, I shall deal with in the following paragraphs.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts for disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaint schedule property belongs in Janmam to the plaintiff Devaswom. The suit is prosecuted by Manager of the Devaswom appointed by HR and CE Department. Admittedly, the Devaswom was to be administered as per the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (in short, the Act). It is averred in the plaint that the property is in direct possession of the Devaswom and admittedly, it is lying as a rocky area. Devaswom contended that it had been paying revenue for the property. Property on the west of the plaint schedule item is in the possession of the appellants' family as lessees under Devaswom. There is a definite boundary separating the properties lying in the possession of the contesting parties. The original appellant/1st defendant tried to trespass upon the property and therefore, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed. Later, the suit was amended in the year 1990 and a prayer for recovery of possession on the strength of title of the Devaswom with mense profits was also incorporated.

4. The original appellant filed a written statement contending that the Devaswom is not in possession of the property from 1963 onwards. According to him, in 1963, the property was orally leased by Devaswom to his mother Lakshmi Amma on an annual rent of Rs.4/-. Lakshmi Amma put her son (the original appellant) in possession of the property in the year 1972 and subsequently, she executed Ext.B1 document in 1983. Thereafter, the original appellant purchased janmam right in respect of this property as per Ext.B2 purchase certificate. He has been paying revenue long before and subsequent to the purchase. The Devaswom has no right to recover possession or to claim an injunction.

5. The trial court examined two witnesses on the side of the plaintiff and four witnesses on the side of the defendants. Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B15 were considered. Exts.C1 and C2 are the Commissioner's plan and report. During the pendency of appeal, three documents were produced and they are marked as Exts.B16 to B18. After considering the rival contentions, the trial court decreed the suit. Lower appellate court, on re-appreciating the evidence, disagreed with the trial court and decreed the suit.

6. Heard Smt.Deepa, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Narayanan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

7. The substantial questions of law, which were framed at the time of admission, are as follows:

1. Has not the lower appellate court erred in independently entering a finding on the question of tenancy of the 1st defendant when the Land Tribunal alone has such jurisdiction in view of Section 125 of the Land Reforms Act?

2. Is not the plaintiff estopped from making a claim for recovery of 'B' schedule in view of Ext.B17 and has not the lower appellate court erred in interpreting the same?

3. Is not plaint claim barred by adverse possession and limitation in view