Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting declaration, recovery of possession and damages, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal. Similarly, dissatisfied with the amount awarded towards damages, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant Cross objection.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.108 of 2011, before the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, for recovery of possession and for damages with costs.

4. After contest, the suit was decreed with costs.

5. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(i) The suit property originally belonged to one Govinda Babu. The said Govinda Babu died intestate on 15.12.1992 leaving behind the 2nd plaintiff as his sole legal heir to inherit the properties. While so, the defendant, who is the brother's son of late Govinda Babu, claiming himself as the foster son of late Govinda Babu, has filed a suit in O.S.No. 53 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur, on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by the said Govinda Babu, for declaration and permanent injunction. After a full fledged trial, the aforesaid suit was dismissed on 05.3.2004. Against which, appeal being A.S.No.38 of 2004, was filed and the same was dismissed. The second appeal in S.A.No.1554 of 2005 preferred by the defendant was also dismissed on 28.9.2010.

(ii) In the meanwhile, the 2nd plaintiff executed five (5) sale deeds in respect of the suit properties for valuable consideration in favour of Mr.K.Margabandu, the 1st plaintiff, and the same were duly registered on 16.1.2005. Hence, the 1st plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit properties. After disposal of the aforementioned second appeal, (S.A.No. 1554 of 2010) Declaration Deed was executed by the 2nd plaintiff on 08.11.2010 confirming the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the 1st plaintiff with an undertaking not to make any claim over the suit properties. As the suit filed by the defendant was dismissed and the same reached finality, in view of the dismissal of SLP and that the Will propounded by the defendant also found to be fabricated and surrounded with suspicious circumstances, the defendant is bound to handover possession of the suit properties.

(iii) In these circumstances, notice dated 30.3.2011 was sent to the defendant calling upon him to deliver possession of suit properties and to pay the damages of Rs.50,000/- per acre on 11.10.2010 for his unlawful use and occupation. The above notice was replied with false allegation. The 1st plaintiff, who is the purchaser of the suit properties, and the 2nd plaintiff, who is the vendor of the suit properties, have joined together and had filed the present suit through their General Power Agent, Mr.K.Sundararaj, for declaration, delivery of possession and for damages.

(iv) While admitting the factum of dismissal of the earlier suit in O.S.No.53 of 1994, which reached finality in view of dismissal of SLP, it is the contention of the defendant that the suit is barred and that the plaintiffs are legally estopped from filing the suit. According to the defendant, the deceased Govinda Babu left the village and settled at Chennai permanently due to his business affairs in the year 1970. According to him, from the year 1975 onwards, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties by raising crops over the same. Further, it is stated that late Govinda Babu has adopted the defendant as his “foster son” and he is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in open and in uninterrupted manner for the past 37 years. The said possession and enjoyment of the defendant is known to entire villagers and also to the 2nd plaintiff. Unfortunately, the said Govinda Babu was murdered on 15.12.1992. Prior to his death Mr.Govinda Babu bequeathed the properties in favour of the defendant by executing a Will