The unsuccessful plaintiffs 3 to 9 are the appellants herein.

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

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit, in O.S.No.68 of 1998, before the learned District Munsif, Thirumayam, for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction directing the fourth defendant to collect the house tax from them.

4. After contest, the learned District Munsif, Thirumayam, by Judgment and Decree, dated 20.02.2001, dismissed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Thirumayam, the plaintiffs 3 to 9 preferred an appeal, in A.S.No.22 of 2001, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai.

6. After contest, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 31.12.2003, dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Thirumayam.

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the first appeal by the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiffs 3 to 9 have preferred the present second appeal.

8. The brief averments of the plaint that are necessary to decide this appeal are as follows:

The parents of the plaintiffs, namely, Muthukaruppan and Adaikkammai died long back. They had one male child and four female children. One of the female children, namely, Kamatchi got married to Muthiah Konar, who belongs to Poolampatti Village. The suit property is a thatched house and its land. Initially, the said land was vacant. The first defendant had been in possession of the said vacant by putting up a thatched house. During 1965, the first defendant permitted his sister Kamatchi and her husband Muthiah Konar to reside in the said thatched house. Accordingly, they were residing and running a Tea Shop therein. Muthiah Konar died 30 years back leaving behind his wife Kamatchi as his legal heir. They had no issues. Kamatchi had been paying the house tax in her name and for which the first defendant had not raised any objection. Kamatchi also died on 03.04.1989. The plaintiffs are their legal representatives. After the death of Kamatchi, one Mohideen became her legal heir as husband. It is correct to state that Kamatchi got married to Mohideen. There was no husband and wife relationship between them. However, based on the legal heirship certificate, from 15.10.1991, the said Mohideen has been in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs raised objection for issuance of legal heirship certificate in favour of the said Mohideen and they filed a suit in O.S.No.850 of 1995 and got a decree in their favour. They have no knowledge about when Mohideen died. The defendants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the said Mohideen. The fourth defendant, for the reasons best known, has colluded with the defendants 1 to 3. The fourth defendant has been refusing to receive house tax from the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

9. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the second defendant and adopted by the defendants 1 and 3 that are necessary to decide this appeal are as follows:

It is incorrect to state that the suit property belongs to the first plaintiff Periayiah Konar, wherein Kamatchi was permitted to reside and she got married to Muthiah. In fact, the suit property belongs to one Mohideen, who is the husband of the first defendant and father of the defendants 2 to 3. The said Mohideen married Kamatchi and they were residing in the suit property. Since they had no issues, he married the first defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are their children. During the lifetime of Kamatchi, she, her husband Mohideen and the children were living together as a joint family. It is utter false to state that the first plaintiff had encroached upon the suit property and during 1965, he had constructed a house thereon. If the said Kamatchi got married to Muthiah, who belongs to Poolampatti Village, there was no necessary for her to reside in Thirumayam. The plain