Counter claim can be maintained only as against plaintiff only.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No.64 of 1985, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Palani, in O.S. No. 547 of 1981. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.

.2. As the decision in the second appeal revolves around the competence of the court to pass a decree in favour of a defendant as contemplated under Order 8, Rule 6, 6-A to 6-G, C.P.C., it is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties or the findings of the courts below in detail.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits by impleading defendants 1 and 2 who were described as trespassers. The third defendant filed an application seeking to be impleaded as defendant. After the plaintiff filed the objections, the application was allowed and he was added as third defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the third defendant had no right, title or interest over the property, the first and second defendants disputed claims of the plaintiff and the identity and description of the property were also disputed. They were in possession of the property and there was no truth in the allegation that they attempted to trespass into the suit property.

4. In the third defendants statement, the genealogy table filed by the plaintiffs was disputed and he termed it as incorrect and incomplete. He claims to be the only son of Vairana Pillaiu through whom the plaintiff had claimed title to the suit property. Consequently, after affixing the requisite court fee, prayed for a declaration of his title over the suit property and a direction to defendants 1 and 2 to deliver possession of the suit property to him. A reply statement was filed by the plaintiffs disputing and denying the various claims of the third defendant.

.5. The trial court after considering the pleadings and evidence held that the plaintiffs had not properly described the suit property and that defendants 1 and 2 alone were in possession of the property. It was also held that the plaintiffs had neither title nor possession of the property, that the third defendant was entitled to the property and that therefore, defendants 1 and 2 were bound to deliver possession of the property to the defendants. With the result, the suit was decreed as prayed for by the third defendant. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court. The cross objection filed by defendants 1 and 2 questioning the decree as granted by the trial court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal by defendants 1 and 2. Apart from two substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission, the appellants had sought leave of this Court to formulate, the following additional substantial question of law after due notice to the counsel for the respondents:-

."Whether the courts below are right in granting a decree to the third defendant against defendant 1 and 2 and whether such an order is not legally impermissible and against the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-A C.P.C."

6. Both sides have argued in detail on the said additional substantial question of law, which is the only the issue on the basis of which this second appeal is disposed of.

7. The facts as stated above would disclose that in a suit for recovery of possession by the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2, the third defendant gets himself impleaded and seeks for a decree for possession for himself. The courts below held that while the plaintiffs had not established either title or possession and that the third defendant was entitled to the property consequently decree for possession is granted in favour of the third defendant as against defendants 1 and 2 who are found to be in possession.

8. Order 8, Rule 6, 6-A to 6-G deal with the power of the court to pass a decree for set off and counter claim. While Order 8, Rule 6 deals with the defendants entitlement to c