1. The above second appeals have been filed against the judgments and decrees passed in AS.Nos.79, 94, 80 and 102 of 2000 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Salem, respectively dated 30.1.2004 arising out of the common judgment and decrees dated 27.4.2000 made in OS. Nos.34 of 1985, 2066 of 1996 and 342 of 1996 (against which, two appeals viz AS.Nos.80 and 102 of 2000 have been preferred), on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. OS.No.34 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem was filed by Mr.P.C.Pachaiyappan – the father of the appellant herein on 7.1.1985 against the State of Tamilnadu represented by the Chief Secretary, the District Collector, Salem and M/s.Anna Transport Corporation for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession.

3. OS.NO.1516 of 1989 was filed on 22.12.1989 by the father of the appellant originally before the Additional District Munsif Court, Salem against the Salem Municipality for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against interference with his possession. This suit was first transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Salem and renumbered as OS.No.348 of 1995 and again transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem and renumbered as OS.No.2066 of 1996.

4. OS.No.366 of 1994 was filed by the father of the appellant on 27.4.1994 originally before the Subordinate Court, Salem against the State Government represented by the Collector, Salem, Anna Transport Corporation and Salem Municipality (now Salem Municipal Corporation) for declaration of title, for permanent injunction against changing the character of the suit property by putting foundation and making permanent obstruction, for declaration that the classification of the suit property as a communal property is null and void and for demarcating the suit property as per the recitals of boundary contained in the sale deed dated 29.9.1952. This suit was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court, Salem and renumbered as OS.No.342 of 1996.

5. All the three suits were tried by the Second Additional District Munsif, Court Salem, which, by a common judgment and decrees dated 27.4.2000, decreed all these suits. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.NO.34 of 1985, AS.No.79 of 2000 was filed by defendants 1 and 2 therein before the First Additional District Court, Salem, against which, SA.NO.1026 of 2004 has been preferred. Against the judgment and decree in OS.NO.2066 of 1996, AS.No.94 of 2000 was filed by the defendant therein before the First Additional District Court, Salem, against which, SA.NO.1027 of 2004 has been preferred. Against the judgment and decree in OS.NO.342 of 1996, AS.Nos.80 and 102 of 2000 were filed respectively by the State of Tamilnadu by the Collector and the Salem Municipal Corporation by its Commissioner before the First Additional District Court, Salem, against which, SA.NOs.1025 and 1028 of 2004 have been preferred.

6. While admitting the above second appeals, the following substantial questions of law were framed :

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property by right of purchase as ryoti land ?

ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code ? And

iii. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in disposing of the matter on pleas not raised in the pleadings or at the trial?"

7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the learned Government Advocate (CS), Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for Salem Municipal Corporation and Mr.Ravi Bharathi, learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, as this Court was of the opinion that additional substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the above second appeals,