JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S. No. 40 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the first appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the ground of jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.

2. For better appreciation and understanding, the parties are referred to as per their in rank in the suit.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs;

(a) To declare the plaintiff's title and allow the plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the seventh defendant;

(b) To pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant from committing damage to the plaint schedule property and sub-leasing the same;

(c) To allow the plaintiff to recover the past mesne profits of Rs. 24,000/- at the rate of Rs. 1000/- from the month of August 1994 to July 1996 from the 7th defendant;

(d) To allow the plaintiff to recover the future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the 7th defendant from the date of plaint till recovery of property;

(e) For recovery of costs from the contesting defendants.

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

The plaint schedule property which is a house (building) and house site originally belonged to the mother of the defendants 1, 5 and 6 by name Bagavathiamma. The husband of Bagavathiamma by name Dhamodharan Pillai, who was managing the suit property, leased out the same to the 7th defendant on 13.04.1959 for rent of Rs. 18/- per month and obtained an advance of Rs. 50/-. After the death of Dhamodharan Pillai, Bagavathiamma filed R.C.O.P. No. 123 of 1982 for eviction of the 7th defendant on the ground of owner's occupation. During the pendency of the said proceedings, she died and in the family partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of the 1st defendant and she got impleaded in the RCOP and that RCOP was allowed and the appeal filed by the 7th defendant against order passed in RCOP was also dismissed. In the meantime, the 1st defendant and her legal heirs/defendants 2 to 4 sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 26.08.1994. On notice of purchase, the 7th defendant agreed to pay rent to the plaintiff. Therefore, the Rent Control proceedings became infructuous. The plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 17.04.1996 (Ex. A6) to the 7th defendant and demanded enhanced rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. The 7th defendant sent a reply under Ex. A7 denying the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Hence, he filed the suit.

5. The brief facts of the case of the 7th defendant are as follows:

The plaint schedule property is a small house. It is a residential building and 7th defendant is residing in the house with his family. It is comprised in an extent of 1-1/4 cents. Dhamodharan Nair leased out the building to the 7th defendant on 15.04.1959. As the old building collapsed and fallen down due to heavy rain, the 7th defendant erected the present building in the year 1965 at the cost of Rs. 15,000/- with consent and knowledge of Dhamodharan Nair. The site alone belongs to Dhamodharan Nair and the superstructure (building) belongs to the 7th defendant. The 7th defendant is not aware of any partition in the family of the defendants 1 to 6. The defendants 1 to 4 have no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. It is unjust on the part of the plaintiff to seek for recovery of possession. The 7th defendant is entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Hence, the 7th defendant filed C.T.P.O.P. No. 31 of 1996 against the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 praying for a direction to sell the plaint schedule property in favour of the 7th defendant on a price to be fixed by the Court and the same is pending. The plaintiff already entered appearance in that case through an Advocate. The suit is not maintainable under law.

6. On the side of the plaintiff, t