Judgment :

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

Aggrieved over the findings rendered in O.S.No.11320 of 2010 by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, the defendants 1 to 4 have preferred this Appeal Suit.

2. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No.11320 of 2010 on file of VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai against the defendants 1 to 6 with the prayer for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession, damages, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

3. The case of plaintiff is that originally the property belongs to one Muthusamy pillai, who purchased the property vide sale deed dated 29.08.1929 from one Dhanalakshmi. The said Muthusamy Pillai died leaving behind his three sons and they succeeded the property as his legal heirs. There was a partition held in the family on 01.12.1984, thereby the suit property was allotted to Saradambal, legal heirs of Govindarajan. She gave a power of attorney to one Manoharan in the year 1984 and based on that, inducted Stephen, Amirthammal and Vijaya as the tenants in the property and after the demise of Stephen, his wife and his children inherited the tenancy rights from their husband/father, who are the defendants 1 to 4. Eversince, they were chronic defaulters in payment of rent to the landlords and they are also disputing the title of Saradambal, who is owner of the property. Subsequently, one Liquat Ali Khan and others purchased the property in the year 1996 from the legal heirs of Saradambal and finally, the plaintiff became the absolute owner after the release deed from the other sharers in the year 1997. In the meanwhile, Stephen had filed a suit in O.S.No.4890 of 1999 with the prayer not to dispossess him except under due process of law and obtained a decree. Even thereafter, they are not inclined to pay the rent and disputed the title. However, the title holder P.M.S.Amrutheen secured possession from the other five tenants during the years 1997-1999, but the defendants 1 to 4 residing in the front portion occupying one room illegally and put up construction unauthorisedly. In the year 2003, P.M.S.Amrutheen sold the property to one T.Shaik Mohamed and through his power agent, the plaintiff purchased the property in the year 2006. The defendants not paid the rent to either of his vendors or plaintiff and also they have disputed the title of the plaintiff. Therefore, he came forward with the suit for a declaration and other consequential reliefs.

4. The plaintiff in order to prove his right and possession and his vendor’s title produced documents along with the plaint. The defendants 1 to 4 filed the written statement stating that the plaintiff has no right and title over the property. The partition deed and other title deeds relied on by the plaintiff was concocted one and also disputed that his father was not a tenant through power agent of Manoharan on behalf of one Saradambal. They have also submitted that the purchase made by the plaintiff as well as his vendors, who are not having valid title to transfer the same, thereby disputing the purchase made by the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff never issued any notice with regard to the purchase of the property and they were not put into knowledge of the sale. Further, the defendants 1 to 4 clearly stated that entire suit property was originally possessed and enjoyed by Stephen nearly about 35 years and he put up a thatched shed and living with his wife viz., 1^st defendant and his children/defendants 2 to 4 till his death. After his death, the defendants 1 to 4 developed the property with tiled house and living there. Apart from that, two huts also put up by them, thereby they have denied the alleged tenancy and also claimed uninterrupted possession and perfected title by adverse possession. They have also submitted that the suit as such is not maintainable, even assuming that there is a tenancy, the Rent Control proceedings ought to have been initiated. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the su