Mr. N. Sathish Kumar, J.

This suit is filed for delivery of possession and for damages caused by the first defendant, by name Elumalai and on plaintiff's death, other plaintiffs were impleaded.

2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is are follows: The suit property absolutely belongs to the first plaintiff, by virtue of the partition deed dated 27.10.1948, registered on the file of SRO, T-Nagar, Chennai. The first plaintiff originally permitted Elumalai, the father of the defendants to use a portion of the land for his cattle shed. The said Elumalai is also residing there. On his refusal to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the land, when required by the plaintiff, the suit in O.S.No.2481 of 1970 was filed on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against the said Elumalai, for recovery of possession and the said suit was decreed on 31.07.1974. Thereafter, execution petition also taken out in E.P.No.3236 of 1978. Pending the said Execution Petition, Elumalai died, therefore his legal heirs were impleaded. The defendants took a stand that they are entitled to protection under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Even though the execution petition was dismissed by the Execution Court, in CRP.No.997 of 1982, execution petition was restored. Pending the proceedings, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board took into consideration the rearing cattle in the human habitants, which was very unhygienic, and Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board have taken steps to evict the hut dwellers. In that process, the defendants were also evicted from the suit property. They were allotted separate tenement No.4, Block No.22 by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board under Brindavan Scheme and they were evicted from the suit property on 18.07.1983. Immediately, the plaintiff fenced the property and took possession of the suit property. When the matter stood thus, the wife of said Elumalai and the defendants 2 to 4 filed suit in O.S.No.2474 of 1995 for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants trespassed into the suit property on 27.05.1996 and put up a small hut. The plaintiff lodged a police complaint on the next day itself. In the meantime, the suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.2474 of 1995 was closed on 24.08.1998, for non prosecution. The 5th defendant after dismissal of the earlier suit, filed a suit in O.S.No.568 of 2002 not to evict them, except by due process of law. Thus, the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants are rank trespassers, without unlawful occupation and entered into the suit property illegally. The suit property is a valuable property. Hence, the present suit is filed for recovery of possession and also for damages.

3. The brief facts of the defendants' case are as follows:

The defendants have admitted that the 1st plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It is the contention of the defendants that they were not aware of the previous proceedings initiated against the father i.e., Elumalai. The plaintiff, in collusion with the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, illegally attempted to evict them from the suit property. However, the same was thwarted by them. The plaintiffs taking advantage of the dismissal of O.S.No.2474 of 1995 tried to disturb the possession of these defendants. Therefore, they were constrained to file another suit in O.S.No.568 of 2002 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The allegation that the defendants are rank trespassers and re-entered the suit property, are denied by them. The defendants are continuing in the possession of the property as legal heirs of the father of late Elumalai, who was admittedly inducted as tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff. As the defendants are in occupation of the suit property as tenant at sufferance, the question of paying for the damages to the plaintiff does not arise and the defendants are continuing in possession of the suit property for several d