2. The property which is subject matter of the Second Appeal is admittedly owned by the appellant Srimath Sivagnana Swamigal Madalayam, Mailam. OS.No.262 of 1984 is filed for bare injunction by one Mannankatti @ Murugesan stating that he has been put in possession of the suit property as a cultivating tenant under the appellant from the fasli year 1985. While so, one K.G.Kuppusamy Mudaliar, (plaintiff in O.S.No.281 of 1986), is trying to disturb his peaceful possession and hence he sought for declaration and injunction against him. Whereas K.G.Kuppuswamy Mudaliar has filed subsequent suit in O.S.No.281 of 1986 against the appellant as well as the Mannankatti @ Murugesan who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.262 of 1984. The trial Court has taken up both the suits together and has framed relevant issues in both the suits and after examining the witnesses on both sides and exhibits marked on their behalf has held that Mannankatti @ Murugesan, the plaintiff in O.S.No.262 of 1984 is entitled for declaration and injunction, whereas relying upon the admission of Kuppusamy Mudaliar made in Exhibit B2, has held that Kuppusamy Mudaliar, the plaintiff in O.S.No.281 of 1986 has given away the possession of the suit schedule property to the appellant Madam in the year 1984 itself and since then, Mannankatti @ Murugesan is in possession of the said property. Holding so, the trial Court has dismissed O.S.No.281 of 1986 preferred by Kuppuswamy Mudaliar.
