JUDGMENT :

The defendants in the suit are the appellants in these appeals.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession in O.S.No.9 of 2007 and O.S.No.19 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pattukottai against the appellants in S.A(MD)Nos. 435 and 436 of 2016 respectively. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the respective defendants filed these appeals.

3. According to the respondent Temple, the entire extent of 36 cents in S.No.138/6 situated in Naatanikottai, Neelakanda Pillaiyar Enthal Village in Peravurani Taluk belongs to the respondent Temple. The name of the respondent Temple was shown as title holder even in Record of Rights Register in the year 1933, Re-Survey and Settlement Register. Even though the suit Village was taken over by the Government under Act 26 of 1948, the lands in S.Nos.135 to 153 in the above said Village was not taken over by the Government. It was further averred in the plaint that in all old documents like R.O.R, R.S.R, Village Re-Survey and Settlement Register of Nattanikottai Village, the respondent Temple's name had been duly registered as the title holder of the entire extent of 36 cents in S.No.138/6. The said old documents were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3. It was also averred that much later when UDR survey was undertaken, the names of three persons were included in respect of S.No.138/6 along with the name of the respondent Temple, even though no other person had got any right, title or interest over the lands in the said survey number other than the respondent Temple. It was further averred in the plaint that the right of the Temple cannot be defeated by illegally including the name of other persons in respect of the survey number and the UDR Scheme. It was further averred that one S.Karuppaiah Thevar and some other person claimed rights in respect of some portions of land in the said survey number and consequently, the respondent Temple filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against them in O.S.No.491 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi and the same was decreed. The respondent further averred in his plaint that the appellants purchased the suit property, which is a portion of land in the above said survey number from some persons, who are not having any manner of right over the same and started claiming right and possession over the suit property. On these pleadings, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession against the appellants. In O.S.No.9 of 2007 out of which S.A(MD)No. 435 of 2016 arises a suit for recovery of possession was filed against the appellants. In the other S.A(MD)No.436 of 2016, a suit for recovery of possession of vacant site after removal of superstructure was filed.

4. The appellants herein filed a written statement and resisted the suit by denying the title of the respondent Temple over the suit property. It was further averred that any judgment obtained by the respondent Temple in the suit referred to in their plaint will not bind the appellant as they were not party to the said suit.

5. The appellant in S.A(MD)No.435 of 2016 claimed that she purchased the suit property from one Jayalakshmi under Exhibit A2, dated 06.10.2004 and the said Jayalakshmi purchased the same from one Ganesa Thevar under Exhibit A3, dated 31.01.1972. It was also submitted that the patta for the suit property had been transferred from the name of Jayalakshmi to that of appellants. It was further averred by the appellants that the appellant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as its owner from the date of purchase and the respondent Temple which had no right over the suit property cannot maintain a suit for recovery of possession.

6. In S.A(MD)No.436 of 2016, the appellant claimed that he got the suit property under a settlement executed by Vaidya Lingam under Exhibit B2, dated 13.06.1977 and the said V