JUDGMENT : The appellant is the first defendant. The first respondent /plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent injunction, and damages along with mandatory injunction against the fifth defendant by disconnecting the electricity supply connection. Insofar as the second defendant is concerned,the permanent injunction is sought to prevent him from making any patta through the first defendant. The mandatory injunction for disconnecting the electricity supply connection has been sought against the defendants 3 to 5. 2. The trial Court has partly decreed the suit in respect of recovery of possession, damages and dismissed the suit in respect of the other reliefs. The plaintiff has preferred the first appeal and the first appellate Court has allowed the appeal. Aggrieved over that, the second defendant has preferred this second appeal. 3. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint are as under:- The suit property in Survey No.297/2 measuring an extent of 0.08 cents situated in Poonamallee Village and Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District with Mandapam known as 'Thilee Mandapam' belonged to the plaintiff Temple. The Mandapam has been rented to one Chandran in the year 1977 for running Mechanic Shed on a monthly rent of Rs.20 and the rent has been periodically increased. The said Chandran has applied for electricity connection and he got it by getting 'No Objection' from the plaintiff. The said Chandran defaulted in paying the rent and the plaintiff Temple has been taking various actions for recovering arrears of rent. In the meanwhile, the said Chandran died in the year 2006 and the suit premises was abandoned. 3.2. The plaintiff Temple is in need of the Mandapam for its own use and the same was intimated to Chandran, but he was not heeding to the request of the plaintiff to handover possession. After the death of the said Chandran, the first defendant tress-passed into the suit premises illegally by doing business. He pretended to be the owner of the property, for which he has no right. As the first defendant is an illegal occupant of the suit premises, he is liable to pay damages. The first defendant made attempts to change the service connection in his name and any such transfer is only an illegal one. He pretended to be the owner of the property, for which he has no right. As the first defendant is an illegal occupant of the suit premises, he is liable to pay damages. The first defendant made attempts to change the service connection in his name and any such transfer is only an illegal one. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction against the defendants 3 to 5 to disconnect the electricity connection standing in the name of the first defendant. In view of the illegal occupation, the first defendant is liable to pay the damages for use and occupation of the Mandapam. Hence,the plaintiff has filed the suit for various reliefs including declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and damages. 4. The first defendant has filed the written statement and the short facts pleaded in the written-statement are as under:- The first defendant has purchased the suit property from Chandran and intimated the said fact to the plaintiff. The first defendant has also paid the arrears of rent due to be paid by the deceased Chandran. The electricity connection has been transferred to the first defendant only with the consent of the plaintiff and the first defendant is ready to pay the rent and hence, the suit should be dismissed. 4.2. The 5th defendant-Electricity board filed a written statement stating that the electricity connection has been given based upon the records and mere granting of service connection will not confirm the title in respect of the property. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues :- 6. During the course of the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2. Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3. Exs.B1 to B10 were marked. The Commissioner's report and plan have been marked as C1 and C2 and the documents furnished by a witness has been marked as Ex.X1. 7. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the materials available on record, the learned Trial Judge has partly decreed the suit and partly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the first defendant /plaintiff has filed the first appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appeal was allowed by decreeing the suit in entirety. 7. At the conclusion of the trial and after considering the materials available on record, the learned Trial Judge has partly decreed the suit and partly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the first defendant /plaintiff has filed the first appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appeal was allowed by decreeing the suit in entirety. Now the first defendant has filed the second appeal. 8. On hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perusing the records, the above second question of law is re-framed as under:- “(i) Whether in law the first appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit in entirety despite the records would show that the property belongs to the Government and in the absence of the plaintiff proving his title over the same?” 9. Even according to the first appellate Court, the suit property belongs to the second defendant Government and it is a poramboke land only. The first appellate Court has granted the relief of declaration only in respect of the first defendant with the consequential relief of the recovery of possession. Insofar as the second defendant Government is concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the second defendant after having ascertained that the Mandapam has been erected in the poramboke land and that the Metro Rail work has been carried out in the area, the suit property viz., Mandapam itself has been demolished and the alleged superstructure put up by the first defendant has also been removed. 9.2. So as on today, the possession of the suit property is with the second defendant, who is the rightful owner of the same. As against the second defendant neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant has any title. The second defendant has removed the Mandapam as well as the superstructure alleged to have been erected by the first defendant in its drive to remove encroachments on 14.08.2024. 9.3. As the cause of action itself has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent action taken by the second defendant Government in removing the encroachments and taking possession of the same and in lieu of the on-going Metro Rail work, nothing survives in this matter for any further adjudication. 10. 9.3. As the cause of action itself has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent action taken by the second defendant Government in removing the encroachments and taking possession of the same and in lieu of the on-going Metro Rail work, nothing survives in this matter for any further adjudication. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the basis of the revenue records, no relief of title can be granted in favour of the plaintiff. There cannot be any denial on the above position of law, but the fact remains that the first appellate Court has not confirmed title as against the original owner, viz., the second defendant, though the first defendant, which according to the first appellate Court is a mere encroacher. As both the plaintiff and the first defendant were encroachers on the suit property, there is no question of proving title against the second defendant either by the plaintiff Temple or by the first defendant. 11. As the suit property has been recovered by the original owner, viz., Government, this second appeal itself is dismissed as infructuous. As the possession has been recovered by the second defendant-Government, the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff is incapable of the execution and hence, it is liable to be set aside. 12. To be noted that setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court will not confer any right in favour of the first defendant as his encroachment has also been removed by the second defendant-Government. 13. Accordingly, the second appeal is disposed of by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2011 made in A.S. No. 73 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur. The parties have to bear their own cost.