JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed in A.S.No.24/2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, thereby reversing the decree and judgment dated 30.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.690 of 1982 by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed in A.S.No.1/2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, thereby reversing the decree and judgment dated 30.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.690 of 1982 by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.

Aggrieved over the reversal of the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, the defendants have preferred the above Second Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed a Suit for delivery of possession, arrears of rent and for permanent injunction.

4. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit property. Originally, the Suit property was owned by one Bandi Srinivasa Mudaliar and he was also managing a Trust called "Nachichatram Trust". The said Trust is a private Trust providing food and water to the devotees coming along with Tirupathi Umbrella. The Trust also ceased to exists. Ryotwari patta was issued in favour of the first plaintiff, after the abolition of minor Inams. The plaintiffs continued to be legal owners who are the wife and son of Late Bandi Kanniappa Mudaliar, who is the son of the original owner Bandi Srinivasa Mudaliar. In the village records, even though the Trust ceased to exists, as there was no Chathiram, the plaintiffs are doing water services and feeding the poor pilgrims on Tirupathi Umbrella day. In village records, S.No.136 was originally described as Grama Natham, which was in the exclusive possession of the said Bandi Srinivasa Mudaliar and Bandi Kanniappa Mudaliar. They have leased out portions of the property to various parties and were collecting ground rent. Subsequently, S.No.136 was divided into S.Nos.136/1 and 136/2. Survey No.136/2 was allotted for forming a road and compensation was also granted by the Government in favour of Bandi Kanniappa Mudaliar. Out of the entire extent in S.No.136/1, i.e., 1.80 acres, the plaintiffs predecessors in title have already sold nearly 80 cents of land and balance of only one acre of land was in possession of the defendants as tenants of the plaintiffs. The property was leased out to one Venu Naidu, who is the father of the defendants.

5. Since Venu Naidu failed and neglected to pay the ground rent, the said Bandi Kanniappa Mudaliar filed a Suit for recovery of possession of "A" Schedule property and it was decreed. The defendant Venu Naidu was directed to deliver vacant possession of "A" Schedule property and to pay damages and cost. But however, Venu Naidu was allowed to be in possession of the "A" Schedule property on the execution of a note on 07.07.1938. On the death of Venu Naidu, his sons, the defendants, continued to be in possession of the "A" Schedule property in S.No.136/1. However, the defendants maneuver to get "B" Memo in respect of the Suit "A" Schedule property from the Revenue Department, suppressed the fact that they are only tenants and thereby denied the title of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs caused a legal notice on 12.03.1982 demanding the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the "B" Schedule property. Since the defendants have failed and neglected to pay the ground rent for the past few years and attempted to trespass into the "B" Schedule property and reap the tamarind fruits from the trees, the Suit for ejecting the defendants from plaint "A" Schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the "B" Schedule property was filed taking the cause of action from 07.07.1938.

6. In the written statement, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs. Acc