The Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2009 made in A.S.No.395 of 2008 on the file of the learned VI Additional City Civil Judge , Chennai , reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2007 made in O.S.No.6559 of 2005 on the file of the VII I Assistant City Civil Judge , Chennai.

2. The Appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the suit before the Court below seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants who are the respondents herein, their agents, servants etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing No.31,M.G.R. Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai- 99. According to the appellants/ plaintiffs, the land belonged to the Government which is a poromboke land and a superstructure therein was put up by the plaintiffs, for which "B" memo was issued by the Government. The suit property consisting of ground floor and first floor having two shops in each floor. In the plaint, the appellants herein have stated that the first plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property since 1980 without any hindrance and he obtained electricity service connection and also paying periodical consumption charges. According to the appellants, the suit property is also assessed for property tax by the Corporation of Chennai.

3. As per the case of the appellants / plaintiffs, the first plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of the second plaintiff, who is the daughter of the first plaintiff, and hence she is the absolute owner of the suit property from the date of the settlement deed dated 11.08.2005. However, the respondents/defendants without having any legal right or title had started interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking the prayer as stated supra.

4. The first defendant filed his written statement and the second defendant has adopted the same. In the written statement, the first defendant had admitted the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellants/plaintiffs. In the written statement, it has been specifically stated that the first plaintiff had been in occupation of the suit property. However, the respondents/defendants has stated that the suit property belonged to Arulmighu Sri Muthu Mariamman Kovil Trust and the first plaintiff was tenant under the Temple. However, he failed to pay the rent in spite of several demands made and in order to maintain peace and happiness among the residents of the area, the temple administration had not taken any stringent action against the appellants/plaintiffs. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the suit.

5. After the trial, the suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the appellants /plaintiffs. Aggrieved by which, an appeal was preferred by the respondents herein before the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal dated 31.03.2009 and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants herein. Aggrieved by which, the second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in the suit. While the matter was pending, the first appellant/first plaintiff was reported dead. Considering the grounds raised by the appellants/plaintiffs, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for disposal of the appeal.

i) Whether the first appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit when the defendants themselves have admitted the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property and not claiming any title to the property?

ii) Whether the findings of the first appellate Court is correct when the same has held that the appellants/plaintiffs have established their possession in the suit property and the plea of the respondents is only that the property belongs to a temple, when the temple is not a party to the suit?

6. Ms.D.Tamilselvi , learned counsel appearing for the appellant