(1.) THE defendants who could not succeed before the courts below has preferred this second appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property and for mesne profits. According to the plaintiff the suit property has been acquired by him who is adopted by his mother from her father Chokkappa Mudaliar through Will dated 5. 7. 1975. Even during the life time of Chokkappa Mudaliar, Murugaiyan who is the elder brother of the first defendant was in possession of the suit property and after his life time the defendants 4 and 5 were the leaseholders and the plaintiff by a release deed, dated 10. 7. 1987 obtained from them got possession of the suit properties, the remaining 30 cents of land has not been taken possession by the plaintiff since the first defendant had been in possession by constructing a house therein, they have been paying tax for the hut also. The plaintiff issued a show cause notice on 19. 10. 1987 to the first defendant's office calling upon him to deliver possession after removing the top, but the same has been returned as there was no such person in the said office, followed by a lawyer's notice on 8. 2. 1988. To the said notice a reply has been sent by the defendants on 19. 2. 1988 denying the title of the plaintiff as well as Murugaiyan besides contending that the release deed will not bind them. Hence the suit.
(3.) THE defendants case in short is that they have been in possession of the suit properties in an extent of 56 cents for more than 40 years, during 1972 the first defendant constructed the house therein and he has been paying the tax for the same, the defendants 1 and 2 planted vegetables in the suit properties and the 4th defendant has only studied minimal standard and the 5th defendant is uneducated and therefore they have not and they could not execute any release deed in favour of the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation and it has not been valued properly. The defendants 1 and 2 are permanently reside at the suit village.