( 1. ) THIS Second Appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated 26.06.2009 passed in Appeal Suit No.75 of 2008 by the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, wherein the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.69 of 2004 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam are reversed.

( 2. ) THE respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.69 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole defendant.

( 3. ) IN the plaint it is averred that the suit property consists of a thatched house and also a vacant site. The suit property is comprised in R.S.No.100/2. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the same. The house which is mentioned in the suit property is bearing door No.12/A. The suit property has been purchased by Panchanatham Padayachi from one Arunachala Naickar under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.1949. The predecessor viz., Panchanatham Padayachi has resided in the suit property till his demise and after his death, his wife Kosalai Ammal and his son Kalia Perumal have inherited his estate including the suit property. They have also enjoyed the suit property till their demise. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Kaliya Perumal through his two wives. The defendant has been enjoying the suit property as a tenant and she has not paid rent regularly. The tenancy right of the defendant has been terminated by way of issuing a legal notice dated 22.03.2000. Even after receipt of notice, the defendant has shown supine indifference in vacating the suit property. Under the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

( 4. ) IN the written statement filed on the side of the defendant it is averred that the description of suit property given in the plaint is admitted. With regard to suit property only Rent Control Act is applicable and the present suit is not legally maintainable. The alleged predecessors in title of the plaintiffs have had no right, title and interest over the suit property. The husband of the defendant has resided in the suit property not as a tenant. Already Kosalai Ammal has filed RCOP No.5 of 1993 and the same has been dismissed for default. The defendant is the owner of the suit property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant has given a suitable reply notice by way setting up title to the suit property upon herself. The defendant has been enjoying the suit property as its rightful owner and thereby perfected title to the same by adverse possession and there is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

( 5. ) ON the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs as appellants have preferred Appeal Suit No.75 of 2008 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 allowed the Appeal and thereby set aside Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the defendant as appellant.

( 7. ) AS agreed by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the present second appeal is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

( 8. ) ON the side of the appellant/defendant, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:

(a) Whether the first appellate Court is correct in disposing the appeal without framing an issue regarding the maintainability of the suit on the face of the pleading raised by t