Rmt. Teekaa Raman, J.

1. The defeated defendants are the appellants herein.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit, in O.S. No. 405 of 1998, before the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

3. After contest, the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, by Judgment and Decree, dated 20.09.2004, dismissed the suit.

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, in A.S. No. 269 of 2004, before the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

5. After contest, the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, by Judgment and Decree, dated 30.03.2005, allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Judge and decreed the suit.

6. Challenging the correctness of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, the defeated defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

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

The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the son of one Ramasamy Thevar, who is the original owner of the suit property. The suit property consists of house and vacant site. Ramasamy Thevar purchased the suit property under two separate Sale Deeds, dated 13.07.1978 and 29.08.1989 from one Veerabadra Thevar. Ever since the date of purchase, Ramasamy Thevar had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had put up a house in the vacant site purchased by him and kept the remaining portion as vacant. He died on 20.07.1995, leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal heirs. After his demise, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants, who have no right over the suit property, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. When the plaintiffs were making arrangements to plaster the northern wall of their house, the defendants caused interference. Hence, the suit.

8. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the third defendant adopted by the defendants 1 and 2 that are necessary to decide this appeal are as follows:

The defendants have denied the right of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The description as given in the plaint is wrong and misleading. The sale deeds relied on by the plaintiffs are not admitted and the recitals thereon are to be strictly proved by the plaintiffs. The fact that the husband of the first plaintiff has put up a house in the vacant site has been admitted. The alleged interference as pleaded by the plaintiffs has been specifically denied. The description of the property as given in the plaint only refers to the vacant site. The defendants specifically disputes the identification of the suit property. The cause of action is also specifically denied. The first defendant is owning a property on the north of the plaintiffs property by registered Sale Deed, dated 29.10.1985. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. They have put up a house on the north-west corner of the property purchased and left the remaining portion as vacant space. The plaintiffs are not having any right over the north of their northern wall. The first plaintiff's husband Ramasamy has already filed a suit against the same defendants in O.S. No. 977 of 1990 for declaration and injunction and in the year 1992, the said suit has been dismissed for default. Subsequently, neither the said Ramasamy nor the present plaintiffs have not taken any steps to restore the same. Hence, the said decision is binding on the present plaintiffs. By suppressing the above said proceedings, the present suit has been filed. They are alone in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the earlier suit has been dismissed for default, the plaintiffs are barred to prosecute the present suit. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

9. Based upon the above pleadings,