The erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court and the first appellate court's error in reversing the trial court's judgment on the applicability of the Kudiyiruppu Act to the defendant.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.95 of 1982 dated 31.08.1998 in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court made in O.S.No.392 of 1973 dated 21.06.1982 in decreeing the suit.

2. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, who were impleaded during the pendency of first appeal in A.S.No.95 of 1982. For convenience, the rank of parties are referred as to their rank before the trial Court in this judgment.

3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint would be as follows:-

The first plaintiff's husband and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 6, by name Krishnamurthy Iyer, was the owner of the suit properties. He died one month back. The plaintiffs are the only heirs entitled to succeed the said properties. The suit property bears T.S.No.1388. The suit property measures 2/3rd of 9300 sq.ft. The defendant executed a paguthy chit in favour of the said Krishnamurthy Iyer on 19.08.1961, agreeing to pay Rs.2.50p per month. Subsequently, it was increased to Rs.3/-per month. The defendant was permitted to put up a thatched shed and reside in the suit property and he is in possession only from 1961. He has got no other right on the property. The period of tenancy was only for one year. But, the defendant continues on the same terms of tenancy. A notice was issued to him terminating his tenancy on 02.09.1970 by the deceased Krishnamurthy Iyer. The defendant gave a reply on 01.10.1970 and the contents of the same are all false. The defendant pleaded that he is liable to pay only Rs.2.50p by way of paguthy per month. The property is situate west of the road. The middle portion in that Survey Number belongs to one Pattu Iyer. The northern and southern portions abutting the portion of Pattu Iyer belongs to the plaintiffs. The defendant wasput into possession of the said property and the western extremity ends till the well portion on the western side in the backyard. Further west of the well, the defendant has got no right. The plaintiffs are in possession of these properties. There is a lane portion on the southern side in the suit properties, and the plaintiffs are having access to their backyard through the lane portion. The plaintiffs in order to avoid unnecessary controversy, restrict their claim of rent to Rs.2.50 per month. The plaintiffs are in need of the premises. The defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants Protection Act, as he became a tenant only from 1961. The plaintiffs are now constrained to file the suit for recovery of possession and the rent for the month of March to May 1973.

4. The case of the defendant as stated in the written statement would be as follows:-

(a) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. Apart from the plaintiffs, there are other heirs of Krishnamurthy Iyer, i.e., three daughters. Hence, the suit filed by plaintiffs alone is not maintainable. The description of property is not clear and there is no demarcation or clear extent of the suit property given in the plaint. The defendant became a tenant of the suit property along with the middle 1/3rd portion, which belong to one Pattu Iyer as early as 1956. Hence, it is false to state that the defendant is in possession of the suit property only from 1961. The defendant put up a superstructure in the middle portion as well as in a small extent in the share of plaintiffs for shop and for residential purpose. The entire extent has been fenced all around and the defendant is in enjoyment of about the entire 9300 sq.ft from then onwards. The defendant is not aware of the alleged paguthy chit dated 19.08.1961. He is an illiterate person and the deceased Krishnamurthy Iyer was helping him in the dispute between defendant and Pattu Iyer. During that time, Krishnamurthy Iyer might have taken some ante-dated document from the de