1. The plaintiff who had filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property after removing the encroachment, has filed this Second Appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2005 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S. No. 10 of 2004 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003 made in O.S. No. 98 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Sirkali, was reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the defendant.

2. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the property situate at Pulichakadu Village in Sirkali Taluk, on 17.11.1988 from Venkataramani, Rajamani and Natarajan, who were all sons of one Kalyanarama Iyer. The suit property is a vacant site which belonged to the Sattanatha Swamy Devasthanam, Sirkali. The suit land is a proposal land which means that the occupier of the land is competent to convey the same and the owner is to render service to the temple as Oozhiyamdar. The plaintiff, having purchased the same for valid consideration, claims absolute title to the suit property. It is stated that with respect to the same property, the defendant originally