1.The defendant is the appellant.

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows:-

The suit property is a village samudayam land and there are 50 pattadars to the suit property. The plaintiff's paternal grand father, Saminatha Padayachi was one among the 50 pattadars. A suit in OS.No.68/1932 was filed by 28 pattadars, against the remaining pattadars for partition, in respect of the suit land, among other properties, in which the plaintiff's grand father was the 3rd defendant. The suit property was shown as item 16 in Schedule-A and the said suit was compromised and a final decree was passed, in respect of items 1 to 15 and leaving the rest of the property as common properties, to be enjoyed by the pattadars in common. The intention of the pattadars for retention of the suit property was, for the use of the temple, viz. Droupathi Amman Temple, which is situated in a portion of the suit property. As the suit property is a village samudayam land, all the pattadars are co-owners and no division of the property took place. The defendant had purchased the undivided share of some pattadars and on the strength of the said purchase, the defendant had put up walls on the