1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the trial Court and First Appellate Court granting Declaration and Injunction in respect of the suit property the present Second Appeal came to be filed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

2. The brief facts leading to file this Second Appeal is as under:

2.(a) The Suit property belongs to the First Defendant. The Suit 'A' Schedule property is cultivable dry lands. It was leased out in favour of the Plaintiff in 1395 fasli for raising groundnuts and ‘Isanthapalan’ therein. The rent agreed was Rs.150 per fasli. The Plaintiff had been raising groundnut, gingelli, black-grams, etc., besides vegetables contributing his own physical labour and that of the members of his family. He has also put-up a thatched watchman hut. He filed an application to record his name as cultivating tenant. After enquiry, the Record Officer passed an order directing the name of the Plaintiff to be recorded vide order dated 4.6.1987. The Plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property as cultivating tenant thereof. Originally there were 80 coconut trees in the suit property however now only 41 coconut trees are available. The usufructs of the coconut trees is being leased out by the temple in public auction every year and the successful bidders in different faslis collected the usufructs with the permission of the Plaintiff. One Mr.Narasimhan and Mr.Pannamuthu attempted to interfere with Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property in the year 1987. Hence, the Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.683 of 1987 against them for Permanent Injunction wherein the Temple was also added as a proper party to the suit. The suit was decreed after enquiry on 26.8.1991.

2.(b) While the above suit was pending, the Executive Officer of the Temple refused to receive the rent for 1399 fasli. When it was sent through Advocate along with a notice, it was sent back stating that the suit was pending. Again when three fasli rent was sent in 1992, It was returned stating proceedings are pending in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The husband of the Second Defendant is the local leader of a political party. The Defendants 2 to 5 and & 7 have filed suit in O.S.No.321 of 1999 against one Mr.Selvam and some others alleging that portion of the suit property was leased out in their favour on 1.7.1989. While the tenancy in favour of the Plaintiff is subsisting no tenancy could be created in respect of the same property in favour of Defendants 2 to 8. The documents have been created by the defendants. The alleged lease in favour of the Defendants 2 to 8 will not bind the Plaintiff. The Defendants 2 to 8 are attempting to trespass upon the suit C schedule property. Hence suit filed for Declaration that the Plaintiff is the tenant in respect of the B schedule property and consequently directing the 2nd Defendant to put Plaintiff in possession of the Suit B Schedule property and also for a direction that the Plaintiff is the tenant in respect of the Suit C Schedule property and consequently restraining the Defendants 1 to 8 from interfering in any manner with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and to direct the Second Defendant to pay future profits.

3. The Defendants denied the allegation of the Plaintiff and submitted that the entries in the R.T.R. will not advance the case of the Plaintiff. The Defendants are not aware of the earlier suit in O.S.No.683 of 1987, since the above decree will not bind them. The Defendants never trespassed the portion of the property. On the other hand the 2nd Defendant has executed a Paguthi chit in favour of the First Defendant on 01.07.1989 and he has regularly paying the rent to the Temple due to the temple. With the permission of the temple authorities and 2nd Defendant has constructed a pucca house for which the Panchayat also levied house tax. The house bears d