the allegations stated in the plaint, especially denied the layout of Raja Periyasamy and three brothers, denied the S.No.201/1 and the rectification deed. Further stated that there has not been any need for the defendant to trespass into the suit property, since she alone has been in possession and not the plaintiffs. The reasoning given in the plaint for the alleged attempt of trespass is untrue and imaginary. The allegation that order of injunction are in force granted in O.S.No. 1199 of 1997 is incorrect, since the said suit was dismissed for default, hence the interim injunction is not in force. The allegations against the defendant for filing O.S.No.1453 of 97 are untenable since the plaintiffs who have no interest or title in the respect of S.F.No.201/1, filed a suit suppressing true facts against the defendant who alone is the owner and attempted to interfere with her possession, which necessitated to file the suit. Admittedly, the above suit is pending, hence the present suit is unnecessary. The allegation and the comment made on the claim made by the defendant in the above suit are irrelevant in view of the fact that the suit commenced upon is pending. Further submitted that the contentions raised by the different as plaintiff in O.S.No.1453 of 1997 may be treated as part and parcel of this written statement. On the other hand, the true facts are suppressed and twisted has been made in the plaint. The suit property is situated in old S.F.No.
