T.Ravindran, J.

In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2014 passed in A.S.No.81 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2002 passed in O.S.No.2718 of 1992 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

a. Whether Kamalamma's children have any right to claim any extent beyond the scope of Ex.A1?

b. Whether the Commissioner's report will be a substitute for the difference between Ex.A1 and A5, especially, when both the documents are different, parties are different but the total flows only from Ex.A1?

c. Whether the Lower Court has jurisdiction to go beyond the scope of the pleadings and the evidence on record?

2. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that