Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants.

2. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.429 of 1987 for declaration declaring her possessory title to the suit property and for consequential injunction with the alternative prayer for recovery of possession which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the respondent herein filed A.S.No.137 of 1991 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore which was allowed. Hence, the second appeal has been preferred by defendants 2 and 3.

3. Substantial questions of law that were framed in this second appeal are:-

"(1) whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is not contrary to law and runs repugnant to established principles when it has denied the suit for possessory title and recovery of possession especially when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property?

(2) Whether the lower appellate court has not misconstrued the scope and nature of the present suit and it should have seen that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and its judgment holding that O.S.No.306 of 1988 would operate against the plaintiff therein is palpably unsound and whether its judgment is not highly irregul