1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.706 of 2003 (Originally O.S.No.2904 of 1989) on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Trichy and the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2000, is the appellant in the above second appeals.

2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.706 of 2003 is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from March 1971 and that he has been paying the property tax etc., as an exclusive owner of the suit property. Though the plaintiff admitted that originally, the suit property belonged to one Padmavathy, the said Padmavathy died in the year 1964 by committing suicide. It is his further case that the suit property which is a residential building was left unoccupied for several years and that no one was prepared to enter into the house, because the suit property was considered to be uninhabitable on account of haunting of ghost.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.706 of 2003 contended that he negotiated with the legal representatives of the original owner, namely, Padmavathi ammal and prepared to purchase the property. In that context, the appellant pleaded that one Krishnamoorthy had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and asked him to take possession of the suit property in March 1971. Though the legal representatives of Padmavathi Ammal had promised to regularize his ownership, they did not execute any sale deed.

4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.706 of 2003 also pleaded that he also made improvements and made the house fit for human habitation by doing poojas to drive out the ghosts. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff pleaded that the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is a part of consideration and in the later point of time, in the plaint, the said transaction has been described as a oral sale, contradicting himself. It was not his case that the plaintiff had purchased the property directly from the heirs of Padmavathi. It is not even pleaded how the said Krishnamoorthy is related to the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the said Krishnamoorthy was dodging and that by virtue of a long and continuous enjoyment of the suit property become the owner by prescription.

5. The suit in O.S.No. 706 of 2003 is only for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the respondents herein, from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff/appellant. Merely after 11 years from the date of filing of the suit for permanent injunction, the defendants in the suit filed another suit in O.S.No.193 of 2000 for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the plaintiff in O.S.No.706 of 2003 who is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2000.

6. In the written statement filed in the first suit in O.S.No.706 of 2003 and the plaint in O.S.No.193 of 2000, it was the common case of respondents in these appeals that the suit property was inherited by the respondents as the legal representatives of the original owner, Padmavathy Ammal.

7. It is also the specific case of the respondents herein that the first defendant was put in possession of the suit property as a tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. It was further contended by them that in the year 1985, the respondents herein filed an eviction petition against the appellant in R.C.O.P.No.90 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli. The said petition was contested by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant herein had filed the first suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.706 of 2003.

8. It is not in dispute that the eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.90/85 filed by them was dismissed for non-prosecution. When the respondents herein filed a petition to restore the eviction petition, the said petition was dismissed on the ground that the suit property is not lying within the municipal limits and as such, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is not applicable.

9. Since the appellant had filed