What are house sites.

The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, in A.S. No. 1 of 1956 on his file by which he allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Devakottai, in O.S. No. 134 of 1954. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the site described in the plaint schedule and for a decree setting aside the order passed by the District Munsif in E.A. No. 92 of 1954, on his file and directing possession of the property to be delivered to the plaintiffs.

The suit property is the northern portion of the property purchased by the plaintiffs under Exhibit A-6 on 14th November, 1951, from one Alagappa Chettiar and three others. A part of this northern portion had been leased by one of the vendors in favour of one Muthayya under Exhibit A-4 on 1st October, 1945. The lease was to enable Muthayya to construct and conduct a tea-shop in the site. He accordingly constructed a tea-shop and was conducting it for some years. The southern portion of the property purchased by the plaintiffs under Exhibit A-6 had been leased to them by Chidambaram Chettiar, father of Alagappa Chettiar, one of the persons who later executed the sale-deed, Exhibit A-6. The site east of the site leased to Muthayya and the plaintiffs was leased to the second defendant by Chidambaram Chettiar under Exhibit A-5 on 25th September, 1949. After Chidambaram Chettiar’s death, his sons conveyed to the plaintiffs the site which had been leased to Muthayya under Exhibit A-4 and the site which had been leased to the plaintiffs themselves east of the site purchased by the plaintiffs under Exhibit A-6 was the site which had been leased to the second defendant under Exhibit A-5. That is the finding of the Courts below, which I accept.

Muthayya purported to sell to his wife under Exhibit A-7 the site which had been leased to him by Alagappa. She purported to sell the site to one Vaidyalingam Pillai under Exhibit A-31 on 17th November, 1951. Against Muthayya, his wife (Sathi) and Vaidyalingam Pillai, the plaintiffs instituted O.S. No. 94 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif for possession of the property which had been leased to Muthayya and which had been subsequently sold to the plaintifis. They obtained -a decree for possession, in that suit. The decree was eventually confirmed in Second Appeal No. 663 of 1954. In execution of the decree, delivery of the property to the plaintiffs was ordered. The defendants in this suit, viz., the parents of Vaidyalingam Pillai, obstructed delivery to the plaintiffs. Vaidyalingam Pillai’s father is the second defendant who had obtained a lease of the site east of the site which had been purchased by the plaintiffs under Exhibit A-6. To remove the obstruction, the plaintiffs filed E.A. No. 92 of 1954 in E.P. No. 62 of 1954 in O.S. No. 94 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai. That application was dismissed. Hence the plaintiffs instituted, under Order 21, rule 103, Civil Procedure Code, the suit which has given rise to this Second Appeal praying for a decree declaring their title, setting aside the order based in E.A. No. 92 of 1954 and directing delivery of possession to the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif on 11th November, 1955. The decree was set aside in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge on 3rd September, 1956. He dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit with costs.

The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ Suit on the ground that the plaintiffs’ vendors did not have title to convey the property on the date of Exhibit A-6, viz., 14th November, 1951. He found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title had title on the date on which they granted leases in favour of Muthayya and the plaintiffs in 1948 and 1949. The Subordinate Judge held, however, that because the village in which the land was situate was taken over by the Government under t