The Defendant in the suit in O.S.No.2 of 1999 is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of property shown as “ABCD” in the suit sketch from the defendant and to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. The consequential prayer sought for is the past profit from the date of suit till the date of delivery of vacant possession with costs.

2. Gist of the plaint averment :

The suit mentioned property is 'inam punjai' land. It belongs to 'Sri Thala Pureeswaraswami Devesthanam'. East of the suit property is a natham land which the plaintiff got through the partition deed dated 12/07/1966. A larger extent of 'inam punjai' land inclusive of this suit property is in enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff. Prior to the year 1966, his predecessors were enjoying the 'inam punjai'. The 'inam punjai' was made over to the plaintiff by one Ramachandran Mudaliar on 13/09/1985 and the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. Since the year 1985, the plaintiff paying the 'paguthi rent' to the devasthanam regularly. On the North of the suit property, the property of the defendant is located.

(a) Earlier, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction in respect of 5 cents of land which includes the 2 cents which is the present suit property. In the suit in O.S.No.23 of 1986, except the plaint schedule extent, decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff. In that suit, the trial Court held that the extent of the present suit property was not proved to be in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Contrarily, the defendant has proved his possession and enjoyment therefore, injunction restraining them was denied. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed confirming the decree of the trial court.

(b) Contending that the defendant have encroached the suit property, the plaintiff has preferred the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit. It was also specifically pleaded in the plaint that the suit is not barred by limitation since, the suit for recovery of possession is filed within 12 years from the date of judgment in O.S.No.23 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali and in A.S.No.48 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladurai.

3. Gist of the written statement:

In the written statement, the defendant has contended that the document dated 13/09/1985 alleged to have been executed by one Ramachandran Mudaliar is a false document. The said, Ramachandran Mudaliar was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In a partition deed dated 12/07/1966, the property of the defendant shown as the East and South boundaries. In the earlier suit in O.S.No.23 of 1986, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have held that through the made over document executed by Ramachandran Mudaliar on 13/09/1985, though the plaintiff has proved the 'paguthi right' of Ramachandra Mudaliar was transferred, he has not proved that the possession of the suit extent land was in enjoyment by Ramachandra Mudaliar and from him, the plaintiff continue to possess and enjoy the suit land. The matter has been already heard and decided by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The judgment of the earlier suit act as res judicata. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:-

“1. Is the plaintiff entitled for recovery of possession?;

2. Is the plaintiff entitled to mesne profit?;

3. Is the suit barred by principle of res judicata?

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-31 were marked. On the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

6. The trial Court has considered the pleadings, documents and deposition relied on by the respective parties both in the present suit and in the earlier suit. The trial Court found that the area which is in dispute and marked as “ABCD” in the presen