The defendants who last before the Courts below is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for declaration of title in his favour in respect of suit 'B' schedule property and also for recovery of possession and the said O.S.No.276 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli was decreed as prayed for on 28.03.2008 and aggrieved over the same the defendants preferred A.S.No.121 of 2008 and as per judgment dated 12.04.2009, the First Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court for fresh disposal and subsequently Exs.C1 to C4 were marked and thereafter, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for on 26.02.2010. Aggrieved over the same, the Second Appeal is now preferred.

3. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the same was purchased as per Ex.A1 sale deed dated 22.03.1950 by the father of the plaintiff by name Kunju @ Mookan Jogi. At the time of purchase, the property was vacant site and after purchasing the property compound wall was raised on all the sides by submitting necessary plan to the concerned Municipal Authority. While putting up the compound wall the plaintiff left space on all the four sides to enable procession of the Deity during special occasions and also to carry out the repairs to the compound wall. According to the plaintiff the space left in such a way is described as 'B' schedule property in the suit and the same forms part of the suit 'A' schedule property.

4. The plaintiff who is the trustee of the temple is the plaintiff and according to him, he is in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. The plaintiff states that the 'B' schedule property was used during the festival occasions for taking procession of the Idol and also for carrying out repairs to the compound wall. The defendants are husband and wife. The plaintiff states that the defendants have no right or interest over the 'B' schedule property, while so they illegally occupied the 'B' schedule property around 1998 and put up a temporary thatched shed and coming to know about it, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the first defendant and a reply was received from the first defendant alleging that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'B' schedule property as a tenant under third party. Thereafter as negotiation for compromise failed, the plaintiff came forward with the present suit. The plaintiff states that he was recognized as trustee and he is in management of the suit temple. Earlier, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.639 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli and decree was passed in his favour restraining the defendants thereon from interfering with the management of the temple by the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as trustee of the temple, ever since the date of purchase of the property. Hence, 'B' schedule property which forms part of 'A' schedule property belongs to the plaintiff as per Ex.A1 sale deed and thus the plaintiff seeks for declaration of title in his favour and consequently for recovery of possession after removal of temporary super structure put up by the defendants herein. Hence the suit.

5. On the other hand opposing the suit claim the defendants contended that the claim of plaintiff namely they left vacant space on the northern side of suit 'A' schedule property and the said vacant space is the suit 'B' schedule property is totally false. According to him the Diety is not taken out in procession on any occasion and 'B' schedule property was not in possession of the plaintiff at any point of time. The suit 'B' schedule property was never utilized in taking out procession of the temple Diety nor for any other purpose by the plaintiff herein. The defendants states that they are the absolute owner of the property situated to the north of plaintiff's property and they purchased the same on 03.02.1999 for sale consideration Rs. 33,000/- from one Paulraj