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 the suit property originally belong to O.Paul allotted by the Corporation of Chennai. After his death, his wife Ragamma had become the owner of the suit property and she had settled same in favour of her daughter Kamalamma, by way of a settlement deed dated 05.02.1975 and after the demise of Kamalamma, thereafter the sons of Kamalamma had sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on 28.03.1985 and according to the plaintiff, the defendants without any authority, encroached into the 'B' schedule property described in the plaint forming part of the plaint schedule property, accordingly, it is stated that seeking appropriate reliefs against the defendants, the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff.

5. The defence taken by the defendants 1 and 2 is that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property and according to the defendants, after denying the plaint allegations stated that O.Paul married Muthialamma and O.A.Paul was born to them and the first defendant is the legally wedded wife of O.A.Paul and the second defendant is born to O.A.Paul and the first defendant and accordingly, it is stated that the defendants 1 and 2 are in the possession of the property belonging to them and not in the plaint schedule property as put forth by the plaintiff and therefore the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 have trespassed into the plaint schedule property is false. The defendants on their own had put up the superstructure in the property belonging to them and residing therein in their own right and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right in the property owned and possessed by the defendants and hence according to the defendants, the suit laid by the plaintiff is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

6. The plaint schedule property is stated to be the superstructures with lease hold rights bearing old door No.109, New door No.12, Old Slaughter House Road also known as Kapila Gananathar Koil street, Royapuram, Chennai 13 consisting of 3 huts, with specific measurements, in all, the three huts measuring 495 sq.ft and lying in a total area of land measuring 1101 sq.ft comprised in R.S.No.10 of Tondiarpet village bounded on the north by Andrew's house, east by lane and hut of Palayan, south by compound wall of Corporation park, West by the house of Guddiapathi Thiruppaly within the registration district of north Chennai. The abovesaid plaint schedule property is claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff by way of the sale deed dated 28.03.1985 marked as Ex.A5 from the legal heirs of Kamalamma. Now, according to the plaintiff's case, Kamalamma had acquired the suit property by way of a settlement deed dated 05.02.1975 said to have been executed by her mother Rengamma and t