1. This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2011 passed in A.S.No.370 of 2009 by the I Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009 in O.S.No.8840 of 2006 passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

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

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

The plaintiff, namely, Mukthi Vinayagar Temple rep. by its Hereditary Trustee Vasantha, filed the suit for eviction of the defendants, on the main ground that the defendants are the tenants under the plaintiff; however they committed default in paying the rent; apart from causing damage to the suit property, and despite terminating the tenancy by issuing notice as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, they refused to vacate the suit property.

4. Per contra, the defendants filed the written statement challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the plaint, detailing and delineating the following facts:

Earlier the same plaintiff filed the suit as against the defendants' mother for eviction and in that suit, the Court heard both sides and dismissed the suit and in such a case, the subsequent filing of the suit is barred. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendants did not commit any default in paying the rent or caused any damage to the suit property, the plaintiff did choose to evict them. The defendants also raised various pleas relating to the competency and capacity of the plaintiff to file the suit and also their hereditary trusteeship.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

6. Up went the trial, during which the plaintiff/Vasantha examined herself as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 was marked; and the defendant/Loganayaki Ammal examined herself as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

7. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

8. "Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the fora below, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:”

"(1) Whether the courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that the second suit is not hit by doctrine of res judicata u/s 11 of CPC when the first suit and the second suit are directly and substantially are one and the same, parties are same?"

(2) Whether the second hereditary trustee of the plaintiff temple in the second suit who sued the appellant as a sole trustee in the first suit can maintain the second suit in the absence of production of the Trust Deed of the plaintiff temple?

(3) "Whether the courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that the appellants have committed default in payment of monthly rent when admittedly monthly rents are being paid regularly by the appellants to the respondent and as on date when there is no arrears of rent at all?"

(extracted as such)

9. Heard both.

10. At this juncture, I would like to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (8) SCC 148 [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another]; an excerpt from it would run thus:

"59. Section 100 CPC provides for a second appeal only on the substantial question of law. Generally, a second appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. In SBI v. S.N.Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92, this Court explained the terms "substantial question of law" and observed as under: (SCC p.103, para 13)"

"13......The word "substantial" prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the par