The legal principles related to possession, occupation, cancellation of permission, truthfulness in judicial proceedings, locus standi, and burden of proof in establishing possession and occupation were established in the judgment.

These appeals are focussed animadverting upon the judgments and decrees dated 06.03.2009 passed in O.S.Nos.2071 of 2006 and 3499 of 2006 by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Niggard and bereft of details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus:

(a) There are two suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking the relief as under:

O.S.No.2071 of 2006:

"(a) To grant injunction restraining the defendant who is a mere trespasser from occupying the suit property;

(b) To grant damages at the rate of Rs.4,000/-p.m. For illegal occupation of the suit property from 01.08.2005 to date of the defendant is may to surrender the property; and

(c) For costs."

O.S.No.3499 of 2006:

"(a) To declare that the plaintiff trust is entitled to manage the suit property;

(b) To restrain defendants in any way interfering with the affairs of the management of the suit property; and

(c) For costs." (extracted as such)

(b)The defendant/Pushpanathan in O.S.2071 of 2006 filed his written statement resisting the suit.

(c) The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(d) Up went the joint trial, wherein, on the side of the plaintiff, one David Raveendran was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A30 were marked; on the side of the defendants, D1/Pushpanathan examined himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S.No.2071 of 2006, but decreed the suit O.S.No.3499 of 2006.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.2071 of 2006, the plaintiff Trust filed the appeal A.S.No.827 of 2009 for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.2071 of 2006 and for decreeing the suit. Whereas, Pushpanathan preferred the appeal in A.S.No.1058 of 2009, on various grounds for setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3499 of 2006.

5. The learned counsel for the Trust would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) One Subramaniam purchased a vast extent of property vide the sale deed as contained in Exs.A1 and A2 and in a portion of it, he raised a Church also. He happened to be the founder trustee of the Trust by name, 'Benash Trust', vide Ex.A11. The properties as contemplated in Exs.A1 and A2 were dedicated to the Trust. While so, the said Subramaniam, from out of his own earnings and funds, raised an out house like structure for himself to stay in it, whenever he visited Chennai by way of sojourn. Subsequently, the said Pushpanathan/D1 entreated and implored him that he might be permitted to occupy it with his family members, so that he would take care to see that there would be no trespass or any encroachment into the said property covered under Exs.A1 and A2. The said Subramaniam also permitted him to do so.

(b) The said Pushpanathan as caretaker had been in receipt of a sum of Rs.200/-(Rupees two hundred only) as salary and in that capacity, he had been permitted to occupy the said out house found described in the 'B' schedule of the plaint.

(c) The Trustees of the plaintiff Trust have been maintaining the property as well as the Church; while so, the first defendant's conduct became contumacious, which made the Trustees to cancel the permission granted to him to occupy as a caretaker of the 'B' scheduled property, by sending two notices as contained in Exs.A24 and A25. Despite that he failed to vacate the premises; whereupon the suit O.S.No.2071 of 2006 was filed. However, the lower Court without taking into consideration the salient features, simply observed as though a suit for recovery of possession should have been filed ignoring the settled proposition of law, that in the case of a caretaker is concerned, after cancellation of permission, injunction could be sought for as against him as per law, as continuation after cancellation of pe