(1.) Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in the suit filed by the first respondent for the relief of ejectment of the defendants from the suit property and recovery of vacant possession.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff / first respondent is that she purchased the suit property from the second defendant on 04.5.1990. Even prior to the purchase by the plaintiff, one A.P. Shanmugam, who is the father of the appellants 2 to 4 and husband of the first appellant dispossessed the vendor of the plaintiff taking advantage of her old age and occupied the suit properties. Therefore, the second respondent filed O.P. No. 163 of 1987 for evicting the said A.P.Shanmugam before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue). Though an order was passed in favour of the second respondent, she was unable to evict him. Therefore, the possession of the appellants herein who are the legal heirs of the said A.P.Shanmugham, is illegal. It was contended further by the plaintiff that a suit in O.S. No. 588 of 1995 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from not converting the lands in their possession into a brick kiln. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The said Shanmugham died in the year 1999. The plaintiff has alleged that the heirs of Shanmugham are not personally tilling the soil and carrying on the agricultural activities. Therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. As their possession was illegal, the suit was filed for ejectment.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants claiming that they were the cultivating tenants in possession of the suit property and the reared coconut trees in the suit property. The defendants also contended that the suit in O.S. No. 588 of 1995 would operate as a bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC for maintaining the present suit.