P. DEVADASS, J.

1. In these twin Second Appeals, namely, S.A. (MD) Nos. 392 and 556 of 2009, since the parties are same, factual matrix is same, substantial question of law is same and the arguments are same, we shall render a common judgment.

2. The suit in O.S. No. 1394 of 1988 has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, seeking injunction with respect to the superstructure bearing Door No. 24B, measuring 34' x 34' feet, having the assessment No. 17252, put up in the site belonging to one Innasimuthu Pillai. The site has been taken permanently on lease by Innasimuthu Pillai from a temple. Under Innasimuthu Pillai, plaintiff became a tenant with respect to the site. He had put up the super structure thereon. After the demise of Innasimuthu Pillai, his son Soosairaj became the plaintiff's landlord. After the demise of Soosairaj, his wife Alphones (1st Defendant) became the landlady. While so, under some unholistic alliance 1st Defendant created an encumbrance by way of sale deed with respect to plaintiff's super structure in favour of Esabellah (2nd respondent). In the circumstances, alleging that they are interfering with the plaintiff's possession of super structure, p