1. The second defendant in the suit filed this appeal as against the judgement and decree dated 4.8.2000 passed by the learned the V Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in O.S.No.1927 of 1996, which was filed for declaration and for obtaining delivery of vacant possession of the property described in the schedule of the plaint.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(a) The first plaintiff-Dr.E.Rajyasree in the suit was represented by her power of Attorney-Mr.A.Jayagopal, who also represented the minor second plaintiff minor E.Navin Emmadi as his next friend. The plaintiffs filed the suit originally as against D1the father-in-law of the first plaintiff, so to say, the father of her deceased husband, namely, Venkatakrishna Emmadi, with the following prayer:

"To pass a judgment and decree against the defendant:

(i) for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole and absolute owners of the House, ground and premises bearing Municipal Door No.1-A, (New No.2), Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Road, Vepery, Madras-600 007, more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint hereunder and for directing the defendants jointly and severally to quit and deliver vacant possession of the house, ground and premises bearing Municipal Door No.1-A, New No.2), Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Road, Vepery, Madras-600 007, more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint hereunder;

(ii) directing the defendant jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.36,000/- and future damages at Rs.1,000/-per month from the date of plaint till date of delivery of vacant possession of plaint schedule property;

(iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant their agents, servants and all those persons claiming under them and/or authorised by them in any manner dealing with the plaint schedule property in a manner whatsoever either by altering or damaging or otherwise;

(iv) directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the suit." (extracted as such)

(b) Pithily and precisely the averments in the plaint would be to the effect that the property described in the schedule of the plaint was donated by the aunt of deceased Venkatakrishna Emmadi, while he was a minor. The original defendant E.Damodaram, represented him as the guardian in the settlement deed and accepted the donation. Whereupon the defendant and his son the deceased Venkatakrishna Emmadi lived in the said house. Venkatakrishna Emmadi got married the plaintiff Rajayasree on 2.3.1977. After staying for a considerable time in the suit property, the said Venkatakrishna Emmadi left for America and there he died, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. They are governed by the Hindu Law. When they made claim over the suit property, D1 resisted their claim, whereupon the suit was filed.

(c) The original D1 died, pendente lite. Whereupon D2 and D3-the daughter and the son of D1 were impleaded. D3 did not participate in the proceedings. However, D2 filed the written statement resisting the suit; a thumbnail sketch of the same would run thus:

D1, during his lifetime acquired absolute right and title over the suit property, as evidenced by the property tax receipts, electricity bills and other consumption charges paid by him. Deceased Venkatakrisha Emmadi left the suit property shortly after his marriage withthe first plaintiff-Rajyasree. Venkatakrishna Emmadi died in America. As such, during his life time, he never asserted any right of ownership under the said settlement deed executed by his aunt. The fact remains that the deceased D1 let out the suit property and received rents. D1 also initiated rent control proceedings as against the tenants and evicted them. As such, D1 acq