Relation of lessor and lessee to be established.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai, is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. There were two other defendants and they have not been made parties to this second appeal, since obviously their presence is not necessary for the purpose of this second appeal. The plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession. The suit has come to be filed under the following circumstances. The suit property is about one kuzhi of land in new survey No. 158/9/19, part of old survey No. 158/1 in Avadainallavijayapuram village, Orathandau Taluk, Thanjavur District. The suit property and five kuzhis of land south of the suit property (total 2 cents) were purchased by the plaintiff from one Chinnayyan under a registered sale deed dated 23-7-76, marked in the suit as Ex.A-1 and the plaintiff has put up a shed thereon and it is in his enjoyment. Before the sale, the first defendant had taken a shed in the suit property from Chinnayyan on lease and on purchase by the plaintiff, the first defendant and Chinnayyan agreed to dismantle and take away the shed and vacate the land within three months from the date of the sale. One Pichamuthu, claiming that he had purchased the extent of the land covered by Ex.A-1 from the very same Chinnayyan, obstructed the enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was obliged to file the suit, O.S. No. 173 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai, against Pichamuthu, the first defendant herein and Chinnayyan, for declaration and for injunction. Pichamuthu and Chinnayyan remained ex parte in the suit and the first defendant in the present suit, who was the second defendant in the earlier suit, alone contested the suit. I will have occasion to refer to the scope of the suit and the nature of the contest by the first defendant herein, the second defendant in that suit, while discussing the question of res judicata agitated in this case. Suffice it to point out at this juncture the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a decree on 26-3-77 for declaration of his title, and for an injunction restraining the first defendant therein, Pichamuthu from in any way interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property and the first defendant herein, who was the second defendant in that suit, was directed to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit. Stating that the first defendant had declined to vacate the suit property and had denied the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the present suit for the above reliefs. Defendants 2 and 3 were added as parties on the ground that they claimed some rights in the suit property. The first defendant contested the suit, denying the title claimed by the plaintiff and questioning the validity of the sale deed under which the plaintiff claims title and the right of Chinnayyan to alienate the suit property to the plaintiff. The first defendant also denied that he was a tenant under Chinnayyan and he would claim that he is running a tea-shop, putting up a superstructure over an extent of 3/4 cent and neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor-in-interest has any right over the suit land. He would also state, that the suit is bad for want of notice to quit. We are not concerned with the defence of the other two defendants in the present second appeal since they went out of the picture by the dismissal of the suit against them by the first court itself and there had been no further agitation against them. With regard to the contest between the plaintiff and the first defendant, three questions arose for consideration. The first question is as to whether the decision in O.S. No. 173 of 1976 would operate as res judicata for the claim of the first defendant; the second is as to whether the plaintiff has established independent title to the suit property; and the third is as to whether the suit of the plaintif