Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This judgment shall govern the above three original side appeals. 2. O.S.A.No.28 of 2004 has arisen from the dismissal of Tr.C.S.No.719 of 2001, a suit for permanent injunction, while the other two appeals, namely O.S.A.Nos.82 of 2005 and 267 of 2008, have arisen from the judgment of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.570 of 1998, a suit for partition. 3. The plaintiff in Tr.C.S.No.719 of 2001 has filed the said suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction, stating that the plaintiff is an Association consisting of members, who are the owners of the apartments at the Flat situate at Nos.12 and 13, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-34 under the name of Mahalakshmi Flats; that the plaintiff association, numbering 46, purchased the undivided shares on various dates from the defendants 1 and 2 through the power of attorney agent S.Palanisamy, who is the proprietor of the third defendant; that the plaintiff association also entered into an agreement for construction of the apartments as per the sanctioned plan with the third defendant; that the defendants 1 to 3 have not given any copy of the approved plan accorded to them by the fourth defendant; that the total constructed area purchased by the plaintiff association is 33,060 sq.ft.; that the vacant space on which the apartments were constructed should have to be 22,040 sq.ft. which is 9 grounds and 400 sq.ft.; that the plaintiff association have purchased the entire area of 22,040 sq.ft. by way of undivided shares and the defendants 1 to 3 do not have any right, claim or interest over the same; that the defendants 1 to 3 in connivance with the 4th defendant is trying to put up further construction in the suit schedule property, which is owned exclusively by the members of the plaintiff association; that the third defendant by letter, dated 25. 1994 asked the plaintiff association a no objection certificate for ratification of the deviations and also for further construction, which is neither permissible in law nor as per the regulations and rules of the M.M.D.A.; and that on 28. 1994, the third defendant attempted to trespass into the plaintiff association members property forcibly and attempted to dump construction materials in the property belonging to the plaintiff association and hence the plaintiff has filed the said suit. .4. 1994, the third defendant attempted to trespass into the plaintiff association members property forcibly and attempted to dump construction materials in the property belonging to the plaintiff association and hence the plaintiff has filed the said suit. .4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2, inter-alia stating that the suit is not maintainable; that these defendants owned land measuring 11 grounds and 653 sq.ft. comprised in T.S.No.554/4 Block No.33 bearing door Nos.12 and 13 Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Madras; that they appointed the third defendant as their power agent for sale of the said land and under separate sale deeds, they sold undivided share in the said land to 46 persons individually and separately, who are said to have constituted the plaintiff association; that the total undivided shares conveyed to them works out to an undivided 12747 sq.ft. in the land measuring 11 grounds 646 sq.ft.; that these defendants retained with them the balance undivided 14306 sq.ft. in the said land; that the said 46 purchasers voluntarily took over 12747 sq.ft. of land on the rear side of the property marked red in the sketch as and for their share in the common property; that they also provided a 20 feet common passage as shown in green colour in the sketch for the purpose of access from the road; that the said 46 persons appointed the third defendant M/s.Mahalakshmi Builders as their Engineer/Manager for construction of ownership flats for them in the said land marked red in the sketch and on construction, they occupied their respective flats and they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective flats together with their respective undivided share in the land measuring 12747 sq.ft.; that the said 46 persons together became owners of red marked portion measuring 12747 sq.ft., while these defendants became entitled to the balance extent of 14306 sq.ft. marked yellow in the sketch; that the power of attorney does not relate to construction of the building; that for the purpose of development of the land marked yellow in the sketch, these defendants dug up bore well and installed electric motor pump set; that the members of the plaintiff association are not in possession of the said land; that as rightful owners, these defendants are entitled to develop the said land marked yellow in the sketch; that when the plaintiff association refused to give the no objection certificate, these defendants explained the correct factum and legal position to the fourth defendant and on being satisfied about the same, the fourth defendant granted necessary planning permission for construction in the said land and that with ulterior motive, the plaintiff association has filed the suit. 5. The learned Single Judge, on trial, dismissed the suit, recording a finding that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and hence it was to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. .6. The defendants 1 and 2 in the suit for permanent injunction have filed C.S.No.570 of 1998 seeking partition, reiterating the contentions as found in the written statement in Tr.C.S.No.719 of 2001 and further, he has stated that the 48th defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.6573 of 1994 seeking permanent injunction; that in the said suit, the association had filed I.A.No.14693 of 1994, seeking interim injunction, but no interim order of injunction has been granted; that inspite of not having obtained any order of injunction, the defendants 1 to 48 are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the land described in schedule C, obstructing the construction being put up, threatening the watchmen and servants of the plaintiffs by lodging complaints against them and also attempted to prevent the officials of the CMDA authorities from taking measurement of the land described in Schedule C; that the cost of construction in the year 1995 when the plan was obtained was Rs.465/-per sq.ft. and the cost of construction as on date is Rs.600/-per sq.ft.; that the consequent damages which the plaintiffs have suffered owing to the increase in the cost of construction as on date is Rs.12,55,500/- and that the defendants 1 to 48 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs the said amount; that in the absence of formal partition, the defendants 1 to 47 are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the land described in schedule C and hence the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and for damages. .7. The 48th defendant Association has filed the written statement, stating that the suit for partition is not maintainable either on facts or on law; that after giving an irrevocable power of attorney to the 49th defendant by the plaintiffs by way of a registered document, dated 14.09.1990, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit without cancelling the deed of power of attorney; that it is false to state that the plaintiffs are the owners of Door No.12; that since the plaintiffs are not the owners of Door No.12, they did not give any power of attorney with regard to that property and hence the suit for partition will not lie; that the registered power of attorney relates to Door No.13 only and the said Door No.13 relates to the apartment of defendants 1 to 47, namely the Mahalakshmi flats and there is no such door number 12 in the schedule of document No.172/90, dated 19. 1990 and hence the schedule of property mentioned in the plaint is erroneous; that the defendants 1 to 47 purchased the undivided shares on various dates from the plaintiffs 1 and 2 through their power of attorney agent, namely the 49th defendant through registered sale deeds; that at the time of registering the sale deed, the 49th defendant changed the door number 13 into 12 and 13 on his own accord illegally to suit his purpose; that the parent documents reveal that the original door is 5, later it was changed as No.13 and that the suit property does not have any door number as 12; that by obtaining an ex parte injunction, the plaintiffs and the 49th defendant took law in their own hands and finished the partition by putting up barbed wire fence, thereby taking away the floor space index of the apartments; that 48th defendant filed I.A.No.2984 of 1998 to vacate the injunction and on 9. 1998, the plaintiffs gave undertaking that status quo will be maintained and the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and a report was filed; that after execution of the work of construction of apartments, the plaintiffs have no right to interfere in any manner with the suit schedule property; that the places which are kept as common would continue to remain as common and no individual like the plaintiffs and the 49th defendant can claim ownership of the property and therefore, for all these reasons, the suit for partition is not maintainable and was to be dismissed. 8. On the above pleadings, the learned Single Judge framed 5 issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and 5 documents were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and 4 documents were marked. The report and the plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exs.C.1 and C.2. On trial, the learned Single Judge granted the relief of partition and permanent injunction in respect of C schedule property and the suit was dismissed in respect of the claim for damages. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants therein have brought forth the other two appeals, namely O.S.A.Nos.82 of 2005 and 267 of 2008. 9. Pursuant to the request made by the learned counsel on either side, all the appeals are taken up jointly for enquiry. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants therein have brought forth the other two appeals, namely O.S.A.Nos.82 of 2005 and 267 of 2008. 9. Pursuant to the request made by the learned counsel on either side, all the appeals are taken up jointly for enquiry. At the time of enquiry of appeal, on consent by both sides, the documents, namely Exs.D.5 to D.52 are marked on the side of the appellant in O.S.A.No.82 of 2005 and so far as the respondents side is concerned, only one document is marked as Ex.P.6. 10. The points that would arise for determination in O.S.A.No.28 of 2004 are as follows: a) Whether the plaintiff/appellant has shown any cause of action, which would require trial of the suit? b) Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled for permanent injunction, as asked for in the plaint? 11. The points that would arise for determination in the other two appeals, namely O.S.A.Nos.82 of 2005 and 267 of 2008 are as follows: a) Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to preliminary decree for partition as claimed by them in the suit? b) To what other reliefs, they are entitled to? 12. As could be seen above, the case of the appellant in O.S.A.No.28 of 2004, in short is that it is the Association, consisting of 46 flat members, who purchased the undivided shares on various dates from the defendants 1 and 2 through their power of attorney, who is shown as the third defendant; that the association entered into an agreement for construction of apartments with the defendants 1 to 3 as per the sanctioned plan; that the defendants had shown different plans to the members at the time of purchase of undivided shares; that the defendants 1 to 3 have not even given any copy of the approved plan; that when they made an attempt to get the plan from the authorities, they could not get it; that the total constructed area purchased by the members of the plaintiff association is 33,060 square feet; that vacant space on which apartments were constructed should have to be an extent of 22,040 sq. ft., i.e. 9 grounds and 400 sq. ft., i.e. 9 grounds and 400 sq. ft.; that the rest of the property, excepting the constructed area should be left common for the use and enjoyment of the flat owners; and that while the matter stood thus, the defendants 1 to 3 in connivance with the fourth defendant was trying to put up further construction, which was to be restrained by way of permanent injunction. 13. The case of the respondents, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the above suit and who also sought for partition and damages in C.S.No.570 of 1998 was that they were the absolute owners of the land measuring 11 grounds and 653 sq. ft. comprised in T.S.No.554/4 Block No.33 bearing Door Nos.12 and 13 Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Madras; that they appointed 49th defendant in the partition suit, who is the third defendant in Tr.C.S.No.719 of 2001 as their power agent in respect of the land; that the members of the Association purchased in aggregate the undivided shares of 12,747 sq.ft. out of 27053 sq.ft. in the land belonging to the defendants 1 and 2 and thus, the defendants continue to be the owners of remaining undivided 14306 sq. ft. out of the total area; that the defendants in the partition suit in respect of the undivided share purchased by them entered into separate supervisory agreements with M/s. Mahalakshmi Builders, of which the 49th defendant was the Proprietor and constructed for themselves apartments upon the land purchased by them and thus, the 49th defendant was doing the work of construction in his individual capacity and not the power agent of the plaintiffs. The right of way in the passage having 20 feet along with the northern boundary line of the land for access from Tank Bund Road to the building was also given. The flat owners immediately after completion of the construction, have taken possession of the property and also have been enjoying the same. The land measuring 12747 sq.ft. described in schedule B to the plaint in the partition suit belonged to the flat owners, while the remainder measuring 14306 sq.ft. described in schedule C belonged to defendants 1 and 2. The 48th defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.6573 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, seeking permanent injunction as if the land measuring 22040 sq.ft. described in schedule C belonged to defendants 1 and 2. The 48th defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.6573 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, seeking permanent injunction as if the land measuring 22040 sq.ft. out of the total area, was purchased and also was in possession and enjoyment of the flat owners, which was factually not only incorrect, but also false. The defendants 1 and 2 attempted to raise only construction of the property, which was prevented by the flat owners and that the cost of construction is escalated and thus, they were liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.12,55,500/-and therefore, the relief of partition was to be granted along with awarding damages. 14. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that the suit was filed by the appellant against defendants 1 and 2, who were the previous owners of the property, the third defendant was the flat promoters and against M.M.D.A. also, asking for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 not to interfere in the common area of the apartment and not to alienate to the third parties and so far as the C.M.D.A. was concerned, to restrain them from sanctioning any plan for further construction. The property shown in the schedule was to an extent of 9 grounds 200 sq.ft. out of 11 grounds 200 sq.ft. situated in Tankbund Road, Nungambakkam, where a multi storey building is situated, which was constructed pursuant to the plan approved. The previous owners of the land, namely the defendants 1 and 2 submitted the plan to C.M.D.A. in the year 1990, which is now marked as additional document. They have also filed a revised plan and got it sanctioned in the year 1991 covering an entire area of the property as site for construction and they have given irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the third defendant, who sold the flats in the form of undivided shares to 46 persons, who are the members of the association. The third defendant has arranged loans for those who wanted to purchase flats and submitted all documents and got the loan amount for his construction. After construction, the possession was handed over to the purchasers. The third defendant has arranged loans for those who wanted to purchase flats and submitted all documents and got the loan amount for his construction. After construction, the possession was handed over to the purchasers. Later in the year 1994, they started further construction in front portion of the flats upon the area, which has to be kept vacant to provide floor space index. The C.M.D.A. authorities came, made an inspection and demolished the same. Under these circumstances, the third defendant, by two letters, dated 23.05.1994 and 29.06.1994, addressed to the plaintiff association, asked No Objection Certificate for ratification of the deviations. Hence the plaintiff Association filed the suit for permanent injunction that the act of defendants 1 to 3 was not only an infringement, but invasion into the property of the flat owners. 15. Added further the learned counsel that in the said suit, the C.M.D.A. remained ex parte. The defendants 1 and 2 have obtained bogus pattas on the very same date at the back of 47 co-owners to take away the common area of the apartment. On those documents, sanctioned plan was obtained by them. On the strength of those documents, they have filed C.S.No.570 of 1998, showing the promoter and their power of attorney as 49th defendant. The plaintiff association filed a suit in O.S.No.6573 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, which was transferred to this court and numbered as Tr.C.S.No.719 of 2001, which was dismissed as not maintainable. In the partition suit, the respondent relied on two documents, namely two sale deeds, dated 9. 1986 and a planning permit, dated 8. 1995 and the two extracts from permanent land register, dated 20.05.1998. According to the plaintiffs in the partition suit, they have given irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the third defendant on 19. 1990 and it was also subsisting. The reason being is that the unpaid purchase money for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs for two sale deeds, dated 9. 1986 was paid on 9. 1990, which would clearly indicate that the power of attorney is coupled with interest. The stamp paper for the power of attorney was dated 9. 1990 and the unpaid purchase money of Rs.20 lakhs was paid on 9. 1990 and the power of attorney was dated 14.09.1990. In all these documents, there is only one Door number as 13. 1990, which would clearly indicate that the power of attorney is coupled with interest. The stamp paper for the power of attorney was dated 9. 1990 and the unpaid purchase money of Rs.20 lakhs was paid on 9. 1990 and the power of attorney was dated 14.09.1990. In all these documents, there is only one Door number as 13. But the flat promoter on his own accord bifurcated one door number into two door numbers as 12 and 13 illegally to suit his convenience and to construct in the common area of the multi storey building and to violate the CMDA Rules. These numbers were mentioned in the bogus patta certificates also. From the evidence of D.W.1, it would be clear that the said door number is now changed from 13 to new no.26 by the Corporation of Chennai. 16. The learned counsel would further submit that application No.2715 of 2001 was filed to reject the plaint. The plaintiffs in the partition suit did not file any counter and on behalf of the plaintiffs in the partition suit, the 49th defendant, the flat promoter filed counter, which would clearly indicate that it was the flat promoter, who has filed the suit for partition and the plaintiffs in that suit have just lent their names. The rough sketch, Ex.P.3, attached with the plaint does not disclose the main entrance of the multi storey building. On 17.09.1998, the plaintiffs obtained an exparte injunction in Application No.458 of 1998. Immediately, they finished the partition by barbed wire fence and the possession of the common area of multi storey building was taken away from the 47 owners of the apartment. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has also filed the report, which would clearly reveal that the new fencing, the demolition, how the residents of the multi storey building were deprived of car parking area, common area and how the fire service or ambulance cannot reach the main entrance and how the four wheeler cannot take a right turn to approach the main entrance of the apartment from the drive way and so on. From the evidence of P.W.1 in the partition suit, it would be clear that he has candidly admitted that the vacant land was shown for the approval of the plan for construction of the multi storey building. From the evidence of P.W.1 in the partition suit, it would be clear that he has candidly admitted that the vacant land was shown for the approval of the plan for construction of the multi storey building. He further submitted that a plan inclusive of the land was submitted to the CMDA for seeking permission for building and that the flats were sold only by way of undivided shares. He has also further stated that it is not correct to state that he did not personally know as to how many flats were sold by power agent and the extent of sale price thereof. He knew that as per the DCR, approval can be given only for an extent of 20793 sq.ft. of land. .17. The learned counsel would further add that in the plan submitted with the plaint, the main entrance of the building was not shown. In 1994, constructions commenced opposite to the main entrance. So far as the evidence of D.W.1 is concerned, he has categorically stated that the 49th defendant, the flat promoter arranged loan for those who wanted to purchase flats and got their signatures and gave all the documents to various banks and the banks gave him money for the construction and he handed over the apartment in the year 1992. Then, he started further construction in the common area, which was objected as illegal by the C.M.D.A., which has demolished the same. Under these circumstances, the 49th defendant wanted no objection certificate for construction in the common area. A meeting was convened and the association was registered and a suit was filed for permanent injunction. The trial court has dismissed the suit for permanent injunction as not maintainable on the ground that there was no cause of action. The learned Single Judge failed to see all the documents filed along with the plaint to prove the cause of action. Further, it was also pointed out that no document was filed to show that they have purchased the constructed area, but everywhere the new flats are sold by way of undivided share is an admitted fact. The further contention that was found was that whenever there was violation of M.M.D.A. Rules, that could be regularised by making fees and it could be ratified. The further contention that was found was that whenever there was violation of M.M.D.A. Rules, that could be regularised by making fees and it could be ratified. The learned Single Judge was not correct in stating that the schedule was not definite and the suit property was not demarcated in the plaint and hence the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the injunction suit has got to be set aside and the matter has got to be remitted back for the purpose of recording evidence and also for framing issues and for judgment. 18. Insofar as the other suit for partition is concerned, the relief should have been refused. The suit for partition is not maintainable, since no one could claim partition of undivided share. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit after giving irrevocable power of attorney coupled with interest in favour of the flat promoter. The CMDA and the Corporation are necessary parties to the suit, since it was they who demolished the encroachment in the common area. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted the demolition and the report of the Advocate Commissioner would also corroborate the same. After obtaining preliminary decree, even without going for final decree, the plaintiffs in the partition suit, have raised offending wall in the common area, which belonged to the apartment owners. The sanctioned plan has also been obtained from the C.M.D.A. to encroach the common area. So far as the bogus pattas granted is concerned, enquiry is pending. The C.M.D.A. and the corporation are necessary parties. Under these circumstances, the suit for partition also should have been dismissed and the decree granted by the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. .19. Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in all the appeals would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 jointly owned the land measuring 11 grounds and 653 sq.ft. situated at Door Nos.12 and 13, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai; that they have jointly conveyed in aggregate an undivided 12747 sq.ft., out of the land measuring 27053 sq.ft. situated at Door Nos.12 and 13, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai; that they have jointly conveyed in aggregate an undivided 12747 sq.ft., out of the land measuring 27053 sq.ft. to the plaintiff association and that the respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to an undivided 14306 sq.ft.; that the said association constructed for themselves a superstructure on the rear portion of the land with 20 feet wide drive way for access from the public road; that the respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit in C.S.No.570 of 1998 for partition; that the appellant association has no manner of right over the said land; that the averment that the land had been set apart for common use and has left vacant for satisfying the floor space index and that CMDA demolished the building which was partly raised by the plaintiffs are all false; that the appellant association have provided a right of way on the north west side within the retained land of the respondents 1 and 2; that it is not the case of the appellant association that the disputed land called as floor space index exclusively belonged to them and it is within the limit of their purchased land; that the appellant association have no right to dispute the ownership or right of getting partition by the respondents 1 and 2 in the suit; that because of the construction of flats upon B schedule and provision of right of way to the said flats, the respondents 1 and 2 have to lose some extent of land that is available for them; and that the CMDA and the Corporation of Chennai are neither proper nor necessary parties for adjudicating the questions arising for determination in the appeal and under these circumstances, the preliminary decree for partition has got to be sustained. .20. As could be seen above, the appellant, the registered Association, consisting of 46 flat owners, has sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any further construction or alienating the suit schedule property. A perusal of the schedule annexed to the plaint would reveal that there was a land to an extent of 9 grounds 400 sq.ft. totalling to 22,040 sq.ft. together with superstructure standing thereon fully completed to the extent of 33,060 sq.ft. at Nos.12 and 13, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-34 out of 11 grounds and 200 sq.ft. A perusal of the schedule annexed to the plaint would reveal that there was a land to an extent of 9 grounds 400 sq.ft. totalling to 22,040 sq.ft. together with superstructure standing thereon fully completed to the extent of 33,060 sq.ft. at Nos.12 and 13, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-34 out of 11 grounds and 200 sq.ft. It is not in controversy that the defendants 1 and 2, by virtue of two sale deeds, marked as Exs.P.1 and P.2 in the partition suit filed by them, became entitled to 11 grounds and 200 sq. ft. Admittedly, the third defendant had acted as power of attorney of the defendants 1 and 2, owners. The consistent stand of the appellant Flat owners Association is that through different sale deeds executed by the third defendant on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, they became owners of the land to an area of 22,040 sq.ft. Equally, the stand of the defendants 1 and 2, who sought for partition, was that it is true, the third defendant has acted as power of attorney and sold to 46 flat owners an undivided share of 12747 sq.ft. out of total area of 27053 sq.ft. and the title in respect of the remainder, namely 14307 sq. ft., continues to be with them. The different sale deeds executed by the third defendant as power of attorney of the first and second defendants in respect of different extent of undivided share in the total area, were not filed by the appellant Association, though they sought the relief of permanent injunction, stating that they purchased 22040 sq.ft. In that suit for injunction, the defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement along with annexure detailing the name of purchasers, undivided shares, the date of registration of sale deed. At the time of enquiry of appeals, the appellant Association has filed the certificate copies of sale deeds and with the consent of the respondents side, the same were marked as Exs.D.5 to D.52. If the undivided shares covered under all these documents executed by the third defendant in favour of all the 46 flat owners, who constituted the Association, were aggregated, it would come to only 12747 sq.ft. If the undivided shares covered under all these documents executed by the third defendant in favour of all the 46 flat owners, who constituted the Association, were aggregated, it would come to only 12747 sq.ft. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that though the plaintiff, who sought for permanent injunction, has stated that they purchased 22040 sq.ft., namely 9 grounds 400 sq.ft., they are unable to establish their case to that extent, but they were able to show that the sale deeds, which are now marked as documents Exs.D.5 to D.52, conveyed only an area of 12747 sq.ft. and nothing more. 21. It is not in dispute that the first and second defendants have categorically admitted that the third defendant has acted as power agent and he has also sold the undivided shares of and to the members of association. Contrarily, it is contended by the appellants that what was sold was not the undivided shares in the land, but only undivided shares in the flat. A perusal of all the sale deeds would clearly indicate that every sale deed was pertaining to the undivided share in the land and not to the flats. Hence the said contention has got to be rejected. .22. The next contention by the appellant was that the plan which was approved by the CMDA of the year 1990 and revised plan of the year 1991 were shown to them and it was in respect of the storey building and the total extent of construction was 33,060 sq.ft. and pursuant thereto, all the sale deeds were executed and thus, since the plan was placed and approved for the entire area covering 22040 sq.ft., now the defendants were estopped from stating that the sale was only in respect of the land and not in respect of the flat. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that all the flat owners, after the purchase of respective undivided piece of land, have entered into an agreement with the third defendant, the 49th defendant in the partition suit, for Supervision/Management services. A perusal of those agreements would clearly indicate that the owners of undivided shares, namely the members of association, were shown as first party and the Mahalakshmi Builders owned by the third defendant was shown as the second party. A perusal of those agreements would clearly indicate that the owners of undivided shares, namely the members of association, were shown as first party and the Mahalakshmi Builders owned by the third defendant was shown as the second party. A perusal of those documents would clearly indicate that the third defendant Palanichamy was appointed as the Engineer-cum-Manager to render supervision and management services for carrying out the construction of flat and he is to organise for and on behalf of the client in respect of the items of works enumerated in the schedule annexed to the agreement regarding construction. It is also quite clear from the document that the third defendant must give approximate estimation of total amount of construction that may be required to be mobilised by the client, namely members of association for each items of work and thus, the terms and conditions found in the document would clearly indicate that there was no agreement between the members of the flat association and the third defendant for construction of any building in the total area of 22040 sq.ft., but it was to supervise the work of construction on behalf of the owners of undivided shares of land in raising flat. Under these circumstances, the contention put forth by the appellant that the first and second defendants, who were the owners of the property, gave assurance to sell the flat with specific measurements, at no stretch of imagination could be accepted. From all the above, it would be quite clear that the flat owners, who are now members of appellant association, have purchased undivided shares in the land under 46 independent sale deeds executed by the third defendant as the power of attorney of defendants 1 and 2, which was only to an extent of 12747 sq.ft. and after such purchase was made, all the members have entered into an independent agreement with the third defendant, appointing him as Engineer-cum-Manager for the purpose of construction in their respective lands. Hence the claim made by the plaintiff that appellant Association purchased under 46 sale deeds put together an extent of 9 grounds and 400 sq. ft. either or the defendants 1 to 3 sold only flat with particular measurements cannot be countenanced. .23. Hence the claim made by the plaintiff that appellant Association purchased under 46 sale deeds put together an extent of 9 grounds and 400 sq. ft. either or the defendants 1 to 3 sold only flat with particular measurements cannot be countenanced. .23. The entire case of the plaintiff, seeking for injunction never rested on sale deeds, by which they purchased piece of land, but they rested their case on the plan originally approved in the year 1990 and subsequently revised in the year 1991 and only on seeing those plans and on the assurance of the defendants 1 and 2, they purchased the property. Had it been true that when the approved plan was for the total area of 9 grounds and 400 sq.ft. and the construction was made only to an extent of 5 grounds, they could have immediately brought the matter to the notice of CMDA. Apart from that, while all the 46 sale deeds put together would cover the area of 12747 sq.ft. only, the appellant association, who sought for permanent injunction, cannot claim more than what was conveyed under the sale deeds and could rest their claim on the approved plan. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge, after looking into the materials available, has pointed out that the plaintiff in the suit for injunction had no cause of action and hence it was a fit case for rejecting the plaint and accordingly done and rightly too. .24. So far as the suit for partition was concerned, it is not in controversy that the plaintiffs in that suit are entitled to 11 grounds 200 sq.ft. by way of two sale deeds executed in their favour in the year 1985. The third defendant, acting as power of attorney, has executed 46 sale deeds in favour of members of association. All the sale deeds now placed before the court by the appellant would clearly indicate that they would cover only 12747 sq.ft. and in respect of the remainder, the appellant could not make any claim. Admittedly, the defendants 1 and 2 were originally the owners of entire area of 11 grounds and 200 sq.ft. and they had conveyed through the third defendant as power of agent to the members of association to an extent of 12747 sq.ft. only and thus, the title in respect of the remainder, namely 14306 sq.ft. Admittedly, the defendants 1 and 2 were originally the owners of entire area of 11 grounds and 200 sq.ft. and they had conveyed through the third defendant as power of agent to the members of association to an extent of 12747 sq.ft. only and thus, the title in respect of the remainder, namely 14306 sq.ft. continues to remain with the plaintiffs in the partition suit and hence it was a fit case where partition has got to be ordered and accordingly, it has been decreed. The contention that in the instant case, CMDA and the Corporation were necessary parties to the suit, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that they cannot be said to be necessary parties to decide the issue for the effective adjudication as to whether the appellants association are entitled for injunction or the respondents are entitled for partition. In view of the documentary evidence adduced, narrated and considered above, it would be quite clear that they are not necessary parties to decide the issue. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the schedule of properties annexed to the plaint was neither definite nor the suit property was demarcated in the plaint entitling the relief of permanent injunction. Though all the sale deeds were not filed before the learned Single Judge, now they are filed at the time of enquiry of appeals. The documents stood as good proof and the annexure made by the defendants in the suit for injunction gave details as to the area of land, name of purchasers and also the date of registration. But those documents did not advance the case of appellant association. 25. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the suit for injunction in Tr.C.S.No.719 of 2001 and has granted the relief of partition in C.S.No.570 of 1998. Hence all these appeals do not carry any merit whatsoever. Under these circumstances, all these original side appeals are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed.