This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.06.2001 made in A.S.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.12.2000 made in O.S.No.286 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.286 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai are the appellants herein. The suit was initially filed for permanent injunction and then alternative relief of directing the defendants to surrender the possession of "B" schedule property was sought for, as they subsequently trespassed into the property, without prejudice to the prayer of permanent injunction.

3. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the suit.

4. The property was purchased in Court auction sale in O.S.No.45 of 1954 on 10.09.1956 by one Rajammal, grand mother of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff has been maintaining the other plaintiffs and plaintiffs have been in possession of the property. The defendants are the adjacent owner of the plaintiffs, on the southern side of the suit property. The survey number to the suit property is 139/2. The defendants previously attempted to put up a fence by encroaching into a portion of the suit property. When the second plaintiff thwarted the attempt, they took signature in the blank paper from the second plaintiff by using rowdy elements. In the first week of May, the defendant is attempting to put up a fence, claiming right over the suit property. The second plaintiff lodged complaint to the concerned police. The defendant trespassed upon the "B" schedule property in and around last week of July 1989. The defendant is a trespasser, therefore, the present suit was filed initially for permanent injunction and subsequently for alternative relief of recovery of possession of "B" schedule property without prejudice to the main prayer in respect of "A"" schedule property.

5. In the written statement as well as the additional written statement, it has been averred that in the plaint, the description of property, four boundaries and survey number are not given correctly and on this ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit property does not relate to the property purchased in Court sale auction by the grand mother of the first plaintiff. Even if so, the suit is not maintainable, as the other legal heirs are not added as parties. The survey number of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint, i.e., 139/2 is not correct. In May 1989, plaintiffs encroached defendants property, by putting fence in AB line, after removing the fence in CD line of the plan filed along with the written statement. When the same was complained to the police and panchayatdars, the plaintiffs agreed to put up the fence in its original position, but they have not done so till date. In anticipation of the civil action by the defendants, the present suit has been filed.

6. The plaintiffs have no title or possession over the suit property. They have not filed any document to show the title. Even if they have got any title, it is barred by limitation.

7. The trial Court, after raising issues, took oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on the side of the defendants, one witness was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. The Advocate-Commissioner's Report, Plan and Surveyors Report and Plan were marked as Exs.C1 to C4. The trial court after discussing the entire evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established the title to the suit property by producing the sale certificate and also found mainly on the basis of the Surveyor's Report, that the disputed land is situate in S.No.138/1, which belongs to the temple. The trial Court, therefore, held that both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant are not entitled to cla