The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiffs must prove their possessory title and that the suit property mentioned in the plaint must be the same as the property belonging to the defendant in order to succeed in a suit for possessory title and recovery of possession.

1. The present Second Appeal has been directed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.

2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal are as follows:

(i) The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.10054 of 1996 for declaration of possessory title, recovery of possession and damages against the defendant/first respondent on the ground that the defendant was allowed to be a tenant and subsequently, vacated from the suit property in the year 1973.

(ii) The first plaintiff is the widow and the plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the sons and daughters of Arokianathan who died in the year 1976. After death of the said Arokianathan, the defendant/first respondent, attempted to interfere with the suit property in the year 1979.

(iii) The plaintiffs submitted that their family is living at No.19(Old No.1-A)Panakkara Theruveethiyan I Street, Makki's Garden, Madras -6 by constructing the superstructure for more than 60 years. The entire land belongs to the Arcot Nawab.

(iv) When Arokianathan was alive, he let out some portions to tenants, in which, a portion to an extent of 20' x 15' was let out to his brother Iruthianathan, the father of the defendant . The father of the defendant vacated the place during the year 1973 due to the rent control petition filed by one Kannabiran and the same was also dismissed. As against the said rent control petition, he preferred an appeal and the said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, he attempted to trespass into the plaintiffs' property during the year 1979 taking advantage of his brother's death. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 18.9.79, Ex.A.4 to the father of the defendant. Again, during the year 1988, the father of the defendant attempted to enter into the suit property along with two others, hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.3243 of 1988 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai against the father of the defendant, Samanthiammal and Salathamary and the same is pending. After filing the said suit, Samanthiammal and Salathamary have not interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. The father of the defendant was only a tenant of the suit property and he has no right. While so, the defendant obtained a settlement deed dated 31.8.1984 from her father on 31.8.1984 and according to the said settlement deed, the defendant has no right in the suit property. The property tax assessed by the Corporation of Madras has been paid by the husband of the first plaintiff and after his death, the same is being paid by the second plaintiff. Further, the plaintiffs submitted that the suit property is bearing Door No.19, Panakkara Thiruveethiyan Street and not 1A, Panakkara Arokiam Street. But, there is no such property bearing Door No.1A, Panakkara Arokiam Street. Since the father of the defendant left the place in 1973 itself as tenant, no right flows to the defendant and even if any right was there for the father of the defendant, the same was lost by him as the plaintiffs have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession.

(v) The plaintiffs further submitted that the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.5692 of 1990 against the plaintiffs on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained an order of injunction against the plaintiffs and then he tresspassed into a portion of the suit property along with his father. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit for declaration of possessory title to the suit property and for delivery of vacant possession after removing the hut put up by her.

(vi) Opposing the said prayer, a detailed written statement was filed stating that the suit filed for declaration of possessory title, delivery of vacant possession and for damages is not maintainable for the reason that the defendant had got suit property under the settlement deed dated 31.8.1984 Ex.B.1 executed by her father and since then, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(vii