Trespasser cannot file suit for possession.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1991 in O.S.No.3 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, in and by which the learned Sub Judge after analyzing the evidence in depth decreed the suit as prayed for.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.

.3. The plaintiff states as follows:

.The suit property, which was originally comprised in Survey No.32, was subsequently sub-divided into 32/1 and 32/2. Later, a portion of the land in the sub division has been acquired by the Government along with the other items in R.S.29 for a public purpose of locating a Government Basic Girls Training School. The property is situate on the road leading to Thiruvendhipuram, from Tiruppapuliyur in continuation of the Lawrence Road and Subbaraya Chetty Street and surrounded on all sides by houses and house sites. Though, originally it was classified as arable land and was really leased out as agricultural land for agricultural purposes, it has ceased to be used as such by the temple as the adjacent properties forming one block have been acquired by the Government as aforesaid for building purposes. The suit property, therefore, is now fit only as house sites.

4. The Masimaha Mandapam, constructed in the suit plot is used for the purpose of the Mandagapadi endowed for that purpose by one Venkatasami Naicker when the deity which is taken from the temple to the sea on the MASIMAHAM DAY is made to rest for a while at the Mandapam and during the period or rest palanquin bearers and other followers accompanying the deity, used the suit property as place of rest.

.5. While so, the defendants who had been unauthorisedly occupying the Highways Road by putting up thatched houses along the road by encroaching thereon were evicted by the Highways Department. The defendants thereupon in a body removed all their belongings and with materials of the sheds they had put on the road, they unauthorisedly trespassed upon the suit property about six years back and indiscriminately put up thatched houses on the suit property. They had no right to occupy the property belonging to the temple without the knowledge or consent of the temple authorities. The plaintiff issued notices to defendants on 17. 1984, but they have not cared to either comply with the demands in the notices or send a reply.

6. The defendants are mere trespassers and they have no right to occupy the suit property belonging to the temple. The plaintiff is not able to predicate to each defendant the respective portion of the property in their enjoyment but they have all constructed their houses within the area comprised in the suit property. Since the relief of recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the defendants arises out of a series of acts of trespass committed by the defendants in common concert and if separate suits are brought against each of them, common question of law and fact would arise all these defendants are joined together as per order I Rule 3 of C.P.C. Hence, the suit.

.7. The written statement of Defendants 4,49 and 71, adopted by the Defendants 9 and 77, reads as follows:

.The plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for mere recovery of possession. Such a suit is not maintainable and, however, barred by limitation. It is true that the suit property is now fit for house site only. The suit property does not belong to the plaintiff nor there was any endowment in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff is not at all entitled for relief of recovery of possession.

8. These defendants and their predecessors in the family settled in the suit property from time immemorial and their possession and enjoyment is supported by evidences for atleast 30 to 40 years. These defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property openly, adversely and continuously for more than 30 years and they have prescribed title to the property by advers