S. Ramathilagam, J.

These Second Appeals arise out of common judgment an decree dated 13.2.2002 made in A.S.Nos.75 and 80 of 2001 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi, confirming the common judgment and decree dated 02.07.2001 made in O.S.Nos.172 and 464 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.

2. The appellant in both the appeals is the plaintiff, namely Rahmath Beevi (deceased, now represented by her L.Rs./appellants 2 to 7) in O.S.No.464 of 1995 and 2nd defendant in O.S.No.172 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, filed for the relief of mandatory injunction against the first defendant to remove the temporary structure made in the fourth schedule property which is the part of the second schedule property and to hand over the vacant possession of the same and also for mesne profits of Rs. 1083/- with accrued interest thereon and also for mandatory injunction against the second defendant to remove the temporary construction made in the third schedule property which is part of the second schedule property and to hand over the vacant possession and also for mesne profit of Rs. 216 with accrued interest thereon.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff, are as follows:

The suit property and the property situated on northern side belongs to one Ameenal Beevi. The said Ameenal Beevi sold the first schedule property to the first defendant and the second schedule property to the plaintiff. The first schedule property is a vacant site. The portion situated on southern side of the second schedule property is the third schedule property. The said third schedule property was given to the second defendant for rent, over which the second defendant has constructed a temporary structure and he was paying rent to Ameenal Beevi. The remaining portion after giving rent to the second defendant, was given to the first defendant by Ameenal Beevi, over which the second defendant has constructed a temporary structure and he was paying rent to Ameenal Beevi.

4. It is also averred by the plaintiff that there is no permanent wall in between the shops of defendants 1 and 2 and in respect of the third and fourth schedule property, the defendants are paying monthly rent to Ameenal Beevi. The first defendant was paying rent for the first schedule property at Rs. 50/- and the second defendant for the third schedule property, was paying rent at Rs. 50/- to Ameenal Beevi. But after purchase of the second schedule property from Ameenal Beevi by the plaintiff, the defendants are not paying the rent for the vacant site.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that even the persons who are enjoying very meager extent of the land, are paying rent at Rs. 250/- whereas the first defendant is paying very less amount towards rent. If the fourth schedule property is given for rent to third persons, definitely he can get Rs. 250/- as rent. The first defendant has to pay Rs. 250/- per month from the date of purchase of the second schedule property. The defendants are also not vacating the second schedule property though demanded by the plaintiff. While so, the first defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.172 of 1995, it is also grievance of the plaintiff that the first defendant, apart from the fourth schedule property, has occupied a portion adjourning the highways and he is liable to vacate the same, otherwise, the plaintiff will be put to difficulty to reach his property from the highways.

6. Aggrieved by the action of the defendants, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants. For the said legal notice, the first defendant gave a reply notice containing false details and the second defendant did not make any reply. The property in which the first defendant has laid a temporary shed, is a part of the second schedule property and it is not the property which belongs to him by purchase. The plaintiff also denies the facts that the property given for rent to the second defendant is also a part of th