The title of the appellant had already been settled in Original Suit No.549 of 1968, and the plaintiffs' contentions were rejected.

Common Judgment:

These second appeals have been filed against the common judgment passed in Appeal Suit Nos.281 of 1994 and 282 of 1994 by the District Court, Tuticorin, wherein the judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit Nos.181 of 1992 and 274 of 1992 by the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam, are set aside.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 in Second Appeal No.113 of 1997 as plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.181 of 1992 on the file of the trial Court, for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellant has been shown as first defendant.

3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is situate in Survey No.241/1, measuring two acres and the same belongs to the Government. The plaintiffs and others have encroached the same prior to twenty five years and constructed houses. At the time of construction, the first defendant has not raised any objection. The plaintiffs and others have constructed their houses thinking that the suit property belongs to the Government. During September 1989, the first defendant and his henchmen have stated that in the year 1968, a suit has been instituted against the plaintiffs and the same has been decreed in favour of the first defendant and the first defendant has demanded ground rent from the plaintiffs and others, and further it has been represented that the first defendant has obtained necessary order so as to demolish the houses of the plaintiffs and others. The plaintiffs and others have accepted the title of the first defendant and executed the rent deeds in favour of the first defendant and the same are nothing but sham and nominal. The plaintiffs and others have put their signatures without knowing the contents of rent deeds. On 10.03.1992, the Special Thasildar has issued a notice and thereby directed the plaintiff and others to appear for enquiry. The first defendant has raised his objection. The rent deeds executed by the plaintiffs and others have not come into force. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

4. It is averred in the written statement filed by the first defendant that the suit property is absolute property of the first defendant. It is false to say that the plaintiffs and others have executed rent deeds under threat or coercion. It is also equally false to say that the rent deeds executed by them are sham and nominal. The first defendant has already instituted Original Suit No.549 of 1968 for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein the State Government has also been shown as one of the defendants and the same has been decreed in favour of the first defendant. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the State Government has preferred appeal and the same has also been dismissed, wherein the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.549 of 1968 are confirmed. The plaintiffs are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint and therefore, the present suit deserves dismissal.

5. The respondents 1 to 5 in Second Appeal No.1748 of 1996 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit Nos.274 of 1992 on the file of the trial Court, praying to declare that the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.549 of 1968 and its subsequent proceedings are illegal, wherein the present appellant has been shown as defendant.

6. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.241/1, measuring 2 acres and the same belongs to the Government. The plaintiffs and others have encroached the same prior to forty years and constructed houses. The defendant is not having any manner of right, title and interest over the suit property. The defendant has instituted Original Suit No.549 of 1968 for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession and the same has been decreed as prayed for. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the State Government (defendant No.41) ha