JUDGMENT :

PRAYER in S.A.No.848 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 14.03.1997 in A.S.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.02.1996 in O.S.No.93 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam.

PRAYER in S.A.No.850 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 14.03.1997 in A.S.No.6 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.02.1996 in O.S.No.97 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam.

PRAYER in S.A.No.851 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 14.03.1997 in A.S.No.5 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.02.1996 in O.S.No.96 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam.

PRAYER in S.A.No.852 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 14.03.1997 in A.S.No.3 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.02.1996 in O.S.No.94 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam.

PRAYER in S.A.No.863 of 1997: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree dated 14.03.1997 in A.S.No.4 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam reversing the judgement and decree dated 27.02.1996 in O.S.No.95 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam.

The facts in all these Second Appeals are similar and the plaints are identical in all the 5 cases except for the names of the defendants and the description of the properties.

2. Before setting out the facts of the case, the following are the details of the Second Appeals, the Suit Numbers. and the First Appeals against which the same has been filed.

Since the plaintiff is same in all the 5 suits the parties are referred to in the same ranking in the respective suits.

Plaintiff’s case:-

3. The plaintiff in all the 5 suits has set out the following contentions:-

The 5 suits are filed for declaration of the plaintiff’s title and for recovery of possession of the properties subject matter of the respective suits. The plaintiff would contend that on 16.02.1991 he had purchased a larger extent measuring 11213 Sq.Ft. situate at Bharathiar Market Street from one K.Vijayakumar. The sale deed came to be registered on 22.02.1992 and possession was taken in respect of the property subject matter of the sale deed except for the strip of land in occupation of the defendants.

4. The plaintiff would further contend that the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit property and they were asked to vacate the property stating that they are in unauthorized occupation and to remove the unauthorized construction. Since the trespass is of a recent origin, the defendants cannot claim a right by ouster. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in question.

5. Since the written statement has slight variations in its narration each of the written statement is separately set out hereinbelow:-

Written statement of the defendant in OS.No.93 of 1993.

6. The defendant w