JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the reversing judgment in the suit O..No.168 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu. The suit was decreed and in Appeal A.S.No.29 of 2007, the Lower Appellate Court (Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu) has reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by which, this Second Appeal has been instituted.

Plaintiff's Case:

2. The case of the appellant, as plaintiff, is that they are the owners of a larger extent of land which has been described as the 'A' Schedule property comprised in Gramanatham New S.No.260/32, (Old S.No.109/A) measuring :

East to west

North to South

together with superstructures and tress.

The suit is filed in respect of a portion of the A Schedule property which has been described as the B Schedule property measuring

Bounded

(The 'A' Schedule property is not described with its boundaries).

3. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant trust has been in existence for over 100 years. For the sake of better management, the trust was registered vide a trust deed dated 25.11.1996.

4. The appellant would contend that they have been carrying on pious work with the income that they derive from out of the rent received from tenants in the trust property and through donations. The patta in respect of 'A' Schedule property stood in the name of the appellant trust, the Chatram (building) had become so dilapidated that the appellant had decided to pull down the existing building and put up a new construction thereupon.

5. The first respondent herein were running a tea stall in a portion of the 'A' schedule property and in the month of June 2000, he had trespassed into the 'B' Schedule property and started putting up construction. The appellant had successfully prevented this attempt but however on 29.06.2000, the first respondent had given out that he would put up a construction in the property and hence the suit.

Original Written Statement of the first defendant:

6. The first respondent herein filed a written statement denying the various allegations contained in the plaint. They have taken out a defense questioning the locus standi of the plaintiff's trust in filing the suit.

7. The case of the first respondent was that the 'B' Schedule property was a Gramanatham and for three generations, the first respondent and his ancestors/predecessors in interest have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in which they had put up their dwelling house. It is the categoric case of the first respondent that the "B" Schedule property is not a part of the "A" Schedule Property.

8. He would also contend that during his lifetime his father, Murugesa Naicker, had re-constructed the dwelling house upon the 'B' Schedule property. The first respondent's father had died intestate and besides the first respondent he had four daughters and one son. All of them were born in the 'B' Schedule property. The first respondent would contend that they have also perfected tilted by adverse possession on account of their long uninterrupted and continuous possession. He would further contend that considering the fact that the title of the plaintiff to the 'B' Schedule property was being questioned, the suit for injunction without seeking the relief for declaration was not maintainable. On this ground the first respondent sought to have the suit dismissed.

Meanwhile the appellant had impleaded the second respondent herein as the second defendant in the suit.

Additional Written Statement:

9. In the additional