This second appeal has been directed against the concurrent Judgments passed in Original Suit No.7 of 1990 by the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram and in Appeal Suit No.7 of 1994 by the Sub Court, Ambasamudram.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.7 of 1990 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for future mesne profits, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant.

.3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff by name Kovil Pichai Nadar and he enjoyed the same uninterruptedly for more than a statutory period. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 212. 1988. After purchase, the plaintiff has asked the defendant to vacate the suit property. But the defendant has agreed to enjoy the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs.75/- and also given assurance to vacate the suit property within six months. The defendant has paid monthly rent upto April 1989 and thereafter she failed to pay monthly rent. The plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 110. 1989 to the defendant and even after receipt of the same, she has failed to vacate the suit property. She has also given a legal notice contending false averments. It is false to say that the suit property has been allotted to the husband of the defendant in a family arrangement. It is also equally false to say that the husband of the defendant has improved the suit property by way of spending Rs.20,000/-. No family arrangement has been made as stated on the side of the defendant. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. It is averred in the written statement filed on the side of the defendant that it is false to contend that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 212. 1988. The suit property has been given to the husband of the defendant in a family arrangement and subsequently he made improvements and lived along with his family members. The husband of the defendant has served in a mill and he passed away on 21.03.1988 and after his demise, the plaintiff has approached the defendant to give the job of her husband to him and the job of the defendant has been given to her brother by name Selvaraj. Since the demand made by the plaintiff has not been conceded by the defendant, the father of the plaintiff has created a false document dated 212. 1988. The defendant has been residing in the suit property as of its rightful owner. It is false to say that the defendant has agreed to pay monthly rental of Rs.75/-. The defendant has given a suitable reply notice to the plaintiff. It is also equally false to say that in a portion of the suit property, the house mentioned in the plaint is situate. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after scrutinising both the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit only in respect of the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession. Against the Jugment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.7 of 1994 on the file of the first appellate Court.

6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the appeal, whereby and whereunder confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent Judgments passed by the Courts below, the present second appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendant as appellant.

.7. At the time of admitting the present second appeal, the following substantial question of law has been framed for consideration:

.“Whether in any event the appellant is entitled to the benefits of Section 51 of the Tra