Though Mr. A. S. Nara-simhan, Advocate, filed Vakalath on behalf of the respondent, he appeared and submitted that he has no instructions from the parties, in spite of his letter.

2. The plaintiffs who failed in their attempt to get a decree for declaration and possession, preferred this second appeal.

3. According to the plaintiffs, one Gnana-prakasam purchased the suit property in 1964. Under Ex. A2, the said Gnana-prakasam sold the suit property to one Sundara Udayar. The said Sundara Udayar, in turn, sold the same under Ex. A1 to one Lakshmi Ammal, the mother-in-law of the plaintiffs. The said Lakshmi Ammal executed a settlements deed, dated 5-2-1973 and settled the said property in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was put in possession of the suit property as tenant and he has not vacated the property in spite of request. Hence the plaintiffs have come to the Court seeking the relief for declaration and for possession in respect of the suit property.

4. The defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the suit property was purchased by one Lakshmiah Chetty, D.W.2, in Court auction sale held in the Execution Proceedings in