G.Jayachandran,J. - (1.) The defendants in the original suit are before this Court as appellants. The suit filed in the year 1982 for the relief of permanent injunction. Pending suit, in the year 1986, an amendment for alternate relief of recovery of possession of the suit property was sought and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the suit went for trial and the trial Court dismissed the suit on 26/08/1992. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of suit property from the defendants and possessing the same till the mortgage is discharged.
(2.) The second appeal is filed alleging that the lower appellate Court gravely erred in granting the decree of recovery of possession, based on the mortgage deed, when the plaintiffs laid their suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession, claiming title, based on the provision in the Will of Late.Manickam Chettiar.
(3.) At the time of admitting the second appeal, this Court formulated Substantial Questions of Law. Later, the Substantial Questions of Law was rephrased on 07/12/2018 as below:- (1)Whether the lower appellate Court is right in granting recovery of possession when it was not the case of the plaintiffs that the claim was based under the usufructuary of mortgage Ex.A2 and Assignment Ex.A3? (2)Whether the Will in favour of Rajathi Ammal under Ex.A1 granting limited estate would flower into absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Indian Succession Act? ;