Pensioner have not acquiesced in possession of alienee.

The appellant in the above second appeal is the defendant in O.S. No.3024 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Cuddalore and the respondents are the heirs and successors in interest of late Kamalammal, wife of Late V.R. Radhakrishna Reddiar and who was also the plaintiff in O.S. No.3024 of 1979.

.2. The plaintiff’ s husband, Radhakrishna Reddiar was said to have purchased the suit property from one Thillaikannu Ammal, under a registered sale deed dated 29. 1964 for a sum of Rs.3,000. After his purchase, he was claimed to have demolished the building that was on the south side and built superstructure at a cost of Rs.50,000 in the year 1965. The suit property was said to have originally belonged to one Krishnasami Padayachi, the grand-father of P. W.1 Venugopal. Thillaikannu Ammal was the wife of Krishnasami Padayachi. In a suit filed in O.S. No.235 of 1945 by Venugopal, a compromise decree was said to have been passed as entered into between the said Venugopal and Thillaikannu Ammal, as per which Thillaikannu Ammal should enjoy the property till her life time without any power of alienation and after her P.W. 1 Venugopal should take it absolutely. The compromise decree in the said suit dated 18. 1946 has been marked as Ex.B-2 in the present proceeding. The defendant/ appellant has purchased the entire 3 cents of property covered under the compromise decree from Venugopal Padayachi on 15. 1963. The said sale deed has been marked as Ex.B-1. After the death of Thillaikannu Ammal, the defendant/ appellant filed O.S. No.897 of 1968, for declaration of his title and also for recovery of possession of the land contending that since late Thillaikannu Ammal had only a life interest, the defendant is entitled to the property in question. The said suit though hotly contested by Radhakrishna Reddiar, was decreed in favour of the defendant herein on 30.10.1970. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, late Radhakrishna Reddiar filed A.S. No.3 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore and when the said appeal was pending, Radhakrishna Reddiar died and the plaintiff in the present suit (Kamalammal) and her children were added as legal representatives of the deceased Radhakrishna Reddiar and they prosecuted the appeal. Ultimately, by a Judgment and decree dated 211. 1974, the appeal was also dismissed. Thereupon, the matter was pursued before this Court and it is stated that the second appeal filed was also dismissed in limine.

3. After all these, the defendant herein has initiated execution proceeding and the objections raised by Kamalammal were overruled by the executing court and the possession was about to be delivered when O.S. No.3024 of 1979 was filed by Kamalammal for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff. Kamalammal, in the present round of proceeding was that the site in question is a railway poramboke that nobody can have a right to purchase except the enjoyer of the property that the plaintiff’s family has rights under the City Tenants Protection Act and since the decree obtained by the defendant was in respect of the site it cannot be delivered without removed of the superstructure, for which there is no direction and that the plaintiff’s family having been in possession and enjoyment of the property for over the statutory period her right cannot be taken away by anybody except the Railways.

4. The defendant herein opposed the claim on the ground that the present suit is barred by res judicata on account of the earlier proceedings referred to supra and that the plaintiff and her children were already parties from the stage of the first appeal in the earlier round of proceedings and therefore the suit claim is devoid of merits.

.5. The trial court held that in the earlier suit O.S. No.877 of 1968 the title of the plaintiff’s husband to the suit property has been negati