Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4227 (MAD)

Kanniammal @ Sakunthala Devi v. M. Sumathi

2016-12-23

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : The suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit property and also directing the defendants 1 to 13 to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property and also to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month in respect of the suit property from the date of the plaint till the date of handing over vacant possession by the defendants. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows: The suit property originally purchased by the father of the plaintiffs in a Court auction on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and after demise of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants and other original encroachers of the adjacent land were suddenly encroached the plaintiffs property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have made a representation to a Corporation. Since the defendants tried to make unauthorised constructions, the Authorities of Corporation issued notices to the defendants to demolition of the unauthorised constructions. Challenging the same, the defendants have filed various Writ Petitions and the same were dismissed. Since the defendants are unlawfully squatting over the property, the present suit has been filed for declaration and recovery of possession and also for damages. 3. The defendants were absent and set ex parte. 4. The 5th plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 were marked. 5. P.W.1, in his evidence has stated about the nature of property, the encroachment upon the property by the defendants, and also about the proceedings taken by the Corporation with regard to the suit property. 6. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 1570 of 1966 claiming the partition by predecessor in title. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of Sale Certificate to show that the property was originally purchased by M.V. Govindarajulu Chettiar, in an Court auction which discloses the title of the plaintiff M.V. Govindarajulu Chettiar, who is the father of the plaintiff. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of dismissal order dated 08.03.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6332 of 2006 which was filed by Nehru Street Slum Area residents. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of dismissal order dated 08.03.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6332 of 2006 which was filed by Nehru Street Slum Area residents. Similarly in EX.P4 is also the certified copy of dismissal order dated 18.04.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6332 of 2006, which was filed by various encroachers of the property. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of dismissal order dated 18.04.2006 passed by this Court in WP.No.6333 & 6357 of 2006 filed by the 2nd defendant questioning the notices issued by the Corporation. Similarly, Ex.P6 is the photo copy of the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by this Court in WP.No.28723 of 2006 which was filed by the 14th defendant. Similarly Ex.P7 is the Judgment dated 30.03.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.481 of 2012 dismissing the grounds raised by the appellants therein. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of affidavit dated 24.07.2006 in WP.No.28723 of 2006, which shows that some of the respondents therein are the encroachers of the Suit property. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the representation given by one P.Kuppabai and others in the year 2006, which shows that the Corporation in fact, agreed to demolish the unauthorised construction made by the encroachers in the suit property. Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the letter obtained under the Right to Information Act, which shows that the defendants along with others have put up the unauthorised constructions in the year 2006 in the Suit property. Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the representation given by the plaintiff and others to remove the encroachers from the Suit properties. Ex.P14 is the photo copy of the written statement filed by the Electricity Board, which shows that Electricity connection has been given to encroachers in the Suit property. Ex.P15 is the photo copy of the complaint given by the owners to the police, wherein they sought information as to how the electricity connection was given to the encroachers. Ex.P16 is the certified copy of the letter given by owners to TNEB. Ex.P17 is the certified copy of the reply letter dated 05.03.2009 given by TNEB to the effect that the encroachers were given electricity connections. Ex.P18 is also the certified copy of the representation dated 14.05.2010 given to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, requesting to demolish the unauthorised constructions made by the defendants. Ex.P17 is the certified copy of the reply letter dated 05.03.2009 given by TNEB to the effect that the encroachers were given electricity connections. Ex.P18 is also the certified copy of the representation dated 14.05.2010 given to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, requesting to demolish the unauthorised constructions made by the defendants. Ex.P21 is the certified copy of the order passed in OS. No. 7911 of 2007, which shows that previous suit filed by the plaintiff and others for mandatory injunction has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action within six months from the date of receipt of such order. Ex.P22 is the photo copy of decree passed in OS. No. 7911 of 2007. Ex.P23 is the certified copy of the layout sketch with regard to the plots purchased by the various owners in the Court auction. 7. Admittedly, the defendants are squatting over the property without any rights whatsoever, over the suit property. 8. On a careful perusal of the above documents, it is clear that the plaintiffs have proved the title of the suit property. The sale certificate, filed by the plaintiffs proved the title of the property. The orders passed by this Court in various writ petitions as well as the proceedings initiated by the Corporation, clearly show that the defendants are the encroachers of the suit property. 9. The suit has been filed after obtaining Leave, while withdrawing the suit in the year 2007. 10. Having regard to the evidence and documents filed by the plaintiffs and the fact that the defendants were set ex-parte, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have established the title over the suit property. 11. Since the plaintiffs have established the title by producing valid Sale Certificate, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to the effect that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Consequently, they are also entitled for decree to recovery of possession. 12. In view of the above and taking into consideration, the location of the property, this Court is of the view that the defendants are liable to pay damages of Rs.1,000/- each from the date of plaint till the date of handing over the possession. Similarly, the defendants have also restrained from alienating, conveying, or encumbering or letting out Suit property. 13. Similarly, the defendants have also restrained from alienating, conveying, or encumbering or letting out Suit property. 13. In the result, the suit is decreed on the above terms with Costs.