JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2007 passed in A.S.No.553 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Judge of City Civil Court, at Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.482 of 2003 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2007 passed in A.S.No.553 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Judge of City Civil Court, at Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.482 of 2003 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge of City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. The second defendant in O.S.No.482 of 2003 is the appellant in the second appeal.

4. Suit for recovery of possession and damages.

5. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s temple is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and the first defendant was a tenant in respect of the same on a monthly rent of Rs.3/-. The tenancy is being computed as per the English Calander month and the first defendant had put up a superstructure on the land leased out to her and been enjoying the same and after demolishing the said superstructure, she attempted to put up a superstructure in the month of November, 2002 without the consent and approval of the plaintiff’s temple and hence, the plaintiff’s temple chose to terminate the tenancy of the first defendant by the expiry of the end of the month of November, 2002 by a notice dated 08.11.2002 and despite the same, the first defendant attempted to proceed with the construction and hence, the plaintiff’s temple filed a suit in O.S.No.5732 of 2002 against the first defendant on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining her from proceeding with the construction and the same is pending. The legal notice sent to the first defendant had been returned as vacant land and the plaintiff’s temple has come to know that the first defendant had handed over the suit land to the second defendant and the second defendant is proceeding with the construction and the possession of the suit property by the second defendant is in the nature of trespass. The second defendant has no right over the suit property and hence, according to the plaintiff, the suit has come to be laid for appropriate reliefs.

6. The second defendant resisted the plaintiff’s suit contending that the suit property is notified as Village Natham as per the Settlement Register of the Department of Survey and Settlement, Chengalpet District and therefore, the second defendant, who is in occupation of the suit property, cannot be treated as a trespasser. The plaintiff is put to strict proof that it is the owner of the suit property. The second defendant is the owner of the suit property and not claimed any right over the suit property through the first defendant. The first defendant is not the owner of the suit property. The allegation that the second defendant is proceeding with the construction in the suit property on behalf of the first defendant is false. The first defendant has never been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has wrongly made the second defendant as a party to the suit. There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit has to be dismissed, since the plaintiff has not placed any evidence evidencing its claim of title to the suit property. The said superstructure has been independently put up by the second defendant as the occupant of the suit property being Village Natham. The plaintiff has also not placed any proof to show that a lease agreement is in existence between the plaintiff’s temple and the first defendant in respect of the suit property and for handing over the possession of the suit property by the first de