(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2004 in A.S.No.20 of 2004 on the file of the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge at Villupuram reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2003 in O.S.No.127 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Munsif at Thirukovilur.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2004 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2003 passed in O.S.No.127 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Thirukovilur.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court.

3. Suit for declaration, possession and recovery of arrears of rent and mense profits.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit property described in plaint A schedule originally belonged to one Subramaniya Mudhaliar and after his demise, his wife Sarasammal and his children had alienated the abovesaid property to the plaintiff for a valid consideration by way of a sale deed dated 14.09.1983 along with the other items of the properties and the plaint A schedule property has been described as the 5th item in the abovesaid sale deed and since then, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property and by way of his long, continuous possession and enjoyment, he has also prescribed title to the plaint A schedule property by way of adverse possession and the plaint B schedule property is a portion of plaint A schedule property, wherein a thatched shed had been put up and the plaintiff has been enjoying the same by paying taxes etc., and the defendant had been inducted as a tenant in respect of the plaint B schedule property during January 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- and the defendant has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint B schedule property only as a lessee and paid rent only up to July 1996 and thereafter committed default in the payment of rent and it is also pleaded that the suit laid by the defendant in O.S.No.440 of 1996 for bare injunction has been dismissed. The plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant asking him to surrender the possession of the plaint B schedule property and the defendant sent a reply containing false allegations, by setting up the title of the suit property on one Ekambaram Mudhaliar and thereby denied the plaintiff's title to the same and hence the suit.

5. The case of the defendant in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that the plaint A schedule property is not owned by Subramaniya Mudhaliar as purforth in the plaint and Sarasammal, wife of Subramaniya Mudhaliar and his children had not alienated the plaint A schedule property to the plaintiff by way of the sale deed dated 14.09.1983 and the abovesaid sale deed is not valid with reference to the plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled to obtain the sale deed only in respect of the properties allotted to Subramaniya Mudhaliar in the partition held between Subramaniya Mudhaliar and his brother and also putforth the case that plaint B schedule property originally belonged to Viswanatha Mudhaliarand and after the death of Viswanatha Mudhaliar, his son Ekambaram Mudhaliar acquired title to the same and conveyed the same to the defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 03.04.2000 and contended that the lease arrangement pleaded by the plaintiff with reference to the plaint B schedule property is false and prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A 20 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. Exs.C1 to C3 were also marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective p