The principle of estoppel preventing a party from denying the title of another party and the requirement to plead mixed questions of law and facts in the pleadings.

1. These proceedings are the textbook examples of as to how a landlord (Religious Institution) is being tormented by tenants for the past two decades by way of raising paralogism, chop-logic and sophistry.

2. The respondent in Second Appeal Nos.889 of 2010, 890 of 2010 and 892 of 2010 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit Nos.253, 254 and 255 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur for the reliefs of recovery of possession and arrears of rent, wherein the appellant in Second Appeal No.889 of 2010, appellant in Second Appeal No.890 of 2010 and appellants in Second Appeal No.892 of 2010 have been shown as defendant(s). Likewise, the appellants in Second Appeal No.891 of 2010 as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.139 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur for the relief of mandatory injunction, wherein the respondents therein have been shown as defendants.

3. In the plaints filed in Original Suit Nos.253 to 255 of 1998, it is averred as follows: The suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff and one Thangavel Asariyar has had served as a trustee of the plaintiff and subsequently as per order passed in O.A.No.198 of 1974 a scheme has been formed for the purpose of administering the plaintiff. The suit property has been let out to the defendant on monthly rental basis. The defendant in each suit has filed a petition under the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 and each defendant has filed a Suit for getting the relief of permanent injunction, wherein it is admitted to the effect that the suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff. The defendant has not paid rent properly. Under the said circumstances, a notice has been given to each defendant and thereby terminated tenancy rights and even after termination, the defendant has failed to surrender vacant possession of the suit property and therefore, these Suits have been instituted for getting the reliefs sought for therein.

4. In the written statements filed on the side of the defendant in each Suit it is averred that the present defendant(s) is not a party in O.P.No.198 of 1974. The plaintiff has not filed any document for the purpose of showing that the suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff. The suit property mentioned in every plaint does not belong to Kammala Community as alleged in the plaints. It is true that the defendant(s) has become a tenant of the suit property mentioned in the plaints. But the tenancy has commenced on mistaken impression. The community people mentioned in the plaints are not having interest in the suit property. It is true that each tenant has filed a petition under the Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 and due to subsequent legislation a memo has been filed for not pressing the same. It is also equally true that previous suits have been instituted against the present plaintiff for getting the relief of permanent injunction. The order passed in the petition filed in Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 as well as the Judgments rendered in previously instituted Suits, will not be helpful to the plaintiff for ascertaining title to the suit property. The defendant(s) is/are not liable to pay any rent at any point of time. For the notice issued by the plaintiff, a proper reply notice has been given. The suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants for more than 30 years and thereby prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. The present Suits are not legally maintainable since relief of declaration has not been sought for and there is no merit in the Suits and the same deserve to be dismissed.

5. The averments made in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.139 of 1999 can be stated like thus: The suit property is comprised in Survey No.357/2. The plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit property by way of putting up constructions and they are enjoying the suit property as absolute owners. The suit property