Madras High Court
N.D.Ramamurthy vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 20 February, 2025
C.S.No.608 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20..02..2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.S No.608 of 2017
N.D.Ramamurthy ... Plaintiff
..Vs..
The Corporation of Chennai,
rep. by its Commissioner,
Rippon Buildings,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003. .. Defendant
Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S Rules read
with Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying to pass the following judgment and
decree against the defendants:
a) To declare the title of the plaintiff over the property of an extent
of 6000 Sq.ft, situate in Plot no.8, Old no.14, New no.28, Pulla Avenue,
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030 and comprised in S.No.64/1B,
T.S.No.2/6, Block no.15 of Aminjikarai Village, Egmore-Numgambakkam
Taluk, Chennai District bounded on the north by Plot no.13, belonging to
Manigandan, South by Ayyavu Street Road, East by property belonging to
the plaintiff and west by Pulla Reddy Avenue Road, more clearly described
in the schedule hereunder.
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.608 of 2017
(b)To restrain the defendants, his men, servants, agents or any one
acting under him, by way of a decree of permanent injunction, from
interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the property of an
extent of 6000 sq.feet, situate in Plot no.8, Old no.14, New no.28, Pulla
Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030 and comprised in S.No.64/1B,
T.S.No.2/6, Block no.15 of Aminjikarai Village, Egmore-Numgambakkam
Taluk, Chennai District bounded on the north by Plot no.13, belonging to
Manigandan, South by Ayyavu Street Road, East by property belonging to
the plaintiff and west by Pulla Reddy Avenue Road, more clearly described
in the schedule hereunder.
(c).To direct the defendant to pay cost of the present suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.V.Kuberan
(For M/s.Rank Associates)
For Defendants : Mr.R.Ramanlaal
(For M/s.P.T. Rama Devi)
****
JUDGMENT
This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property.
2. The case of the Plaintiff, as set out, in the plaint is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, which
was acquired by the Plaintiff's predecessors in title much earlier to the year
1951, as seen from the Deed of Partition dated 04.03.1951 and thereafter,
the property had changed hands under the following documents, viz., Sale
deed dated 15.06.1962, registered as document No.2018 of 1962, Sale
deed dated 15.06.1962, registered as document No.2019 of 1962; and Sale
deed dated 19.08.1962, registered as document No.3887 of 1962 and
finally the plaintiff had become the owner of the same by virtue of an order
passed in T.O.S. No. 20 of 2009 by this Court.
(ii) The plaintiff had leased out the area facing Pulla Avenue from
time to time and as on date, the same is in possession of the tenant
Mrs.P.Jansi, who has been running a Honda Service Centre from the year
2013 onwards. The entire property is being assessed to tax and the plaintiff
has been paying the property taxes as well. The tenant has constructed and
provided all the necessary infrastructure required for running the service
centre. A ramp and service equipment has also been constructed in the
portion of the land falling S.No.2/6 and facing Pulla Reddy Avenue, with a
compound wall and gate. While so, on 18.07.2017, the Assistant Engineer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Executive Engineer and Zonal officer of Zone VIII, Ward 102, Corporation
of Chennai, visited the property and claimed that a portion of the property
abutting Pulla Avenue belongs to Corporation of Chennai and closed the
gates of the Service Centre by sending out all the employees of the tenant.
(iii)The plaintiff claims that no notice of any kind was ever given to
the plaintiff or to his tenant in this regard. No proof of any kind relating to
the alleged ownership of Corporation of Chennai was also shown or
provided to the plaintiff, despite specific requests and demands made by
him. They did not even allow the tenant to remove all their belongings and
threatened to take severe action if they are not allowed to lock the gates
immediately. The plaintiff was not even allowed to get any legal help in
order to ascertain his rights under law. While it is settled law that even an
encroacher cannot be thrown out without giving proper notice and
opportunity to show cause as to why action should not be taken against
them, in the instant case where a lawful owner who has been in possession
of the property with a compound wall and a gate for nearly 60 years, has
been forcibly sent out in no time by taking law into their hands.
(iv)The officers attached to the office of the defendant also
attempted to park Garbage trucks and later after closing the gate with a tin
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sheet and putting up a board, they have also unloaded unused electric poles
and materials hindering the entrance and a warning has also been given that
they would resume demolition activities. The action is high handed and
illegal. It is not open to Corporation officials to take law into their hands
and indulge in unlawful eviction exercises without following the legal
processes. Though the plaintiff met all the officers concerned and requested
for providing time and also to give copies of the document under which
Corporation is claiming the right, but they have not chosen to give any such
basic documents. On the contrary, the plaintiff is in possession of all the
documents including the property tax assessment records carried out by the
same Corporation officials showing it as proof of ownership. The
assessment order showing the property address at Pulla Reddy Avenue,
Shenoy Nagar, issued by the Corporation of Chennai.
v)Earlier when such an attempt was made by the Corporation to
prevent the plaintiff's predecessor in title to enter into the property, he had
filed a suit in O.S.No.9481 of 1994, on the file of XVIII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai and has obtained a decree of declaration relating
to his right over the property in T.S.No.2/6, Pulla Reddy Avenue,
Aminjikarai, Chennai-30 and a permanent injunction restraining the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant herein from in any manner, interfering with property including
demolishing the super structure which existed therein. The said decree had
attained finality. However, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff, praying
for a substantive relief regarding the prescriptive title of the plaintiff on
account of the attempt of interference made by the defendant's officers on
18.07.2017.
vi.The plaintiff has been in possession, occupation and enjoyment of
the property as a lawful owner for nearly 66 years, and have perfected their
title to the said land by prescription and the action of the Corporation of
Chennai in closing down the gates without any right or without following
any procedure as per law, is illegal. The plaintiff, who has been in
possession of the property with a compound wall and gate will be greatly
prejudiced, in the event of the defendant attempting any such act. Hence,
the present suit.
3. The case of the Defendant, in a nutshell, as set out in his written
statement, is as follows:-
(i) The lands bearing in Old S.No.64/1 part. 64/2, 64/3, 64/4 and
65/1 and 65/2 in vast extent of Aminjikarai Village were acquired for for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
formation of a road approaching the Poonamalle High Road from Shenoy
Nagar and Parks as well. vide G.O.Ms.No.2297 (Health) dated 24.06.1950
which was published in the Gazette Under Section 14(5) of the Town
Planning Act on 10.10.1950. The Property comprised in Old S.No.64/2 is
left to be maintained as a Public Park. The Patta and other Revenue
Records show that the property comprised in Old S.No.64/2, now
T.S.No.2/6 is owned by the Defendant Corporation. But the owner of the
adjacent Property comprised in Old S.No.64/1B presently T.S.No.2/4 had
illegally encroached the suit property in T.S.No.2/6. Now and then the
defendant Corporation had removed the encroachments.
(ii).On perusal of the entire block Map of Shenoy Nagar Scheme
and other relevant records, it was found that the said suit property
measuring an extent of 6237sq. ft. comprised in T.S.No.2/6 belongs to
Corporation and with the help of the Tahsildar, Land and Revenue
Department, the locations of the land in disputes and the above Suit
property, which is concrete topped with a ramp elevating to the first floor
of the building situated in adjacent land comprised in T.S.No.2/4 belonging
to the plaintiff were now identified and immediately noticing the above suit
land in a position of being on an attempt for illegally grabbing by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff, the defendant officials had with necessary instructions taken
possession of the above suit property by storing the lamp posts in the said
land and particularly erected the Display Board, displaying the message
that the property belongs to the Corporation of Chennai and affixed a
notice to remove the encroachment caused in the land belonging to the
Corporation by Locking the gate fixed by the encroacher. All these actions
of the Defendant Corporation had been simply watched by the plaintiff's
persons, but after ten days the plaintiff and his agents had broken the lock
and trespassed into the defendant's property and had even uprooted the
Board erected by the Corporation / Defendant. In an enquiry conducted in
the complaint lodged by this defendant Corporation against the plaintiff
within the Jurisdictional Police Station, the plaintiff submitted a photo copy
of Decree dated 24-12-1996 passed by the Hon'ble XVIII Asst. City Civil
Court, Chennai in O.S.No.9481 of 1996. On perusal of the same, the
defendant got to know that the plaintiff's predecessor in title had obtained
an ex parte decree for Easement of Necessity by misleading and
misrepresenting before the said Court. When the said suit number was
verified with our legal cell, the notice of the same had not been duly served
and the file pertaining to the above case, had not been put up or maintained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the Office. The plaintiff managed to obtain an Exparte Decree against
the Corporation. Now that, necessary steps had been taken to file a Petition
to set aside the Exparte Decree. The above said Suit in O.S.No.9481 of
1996 was filed for Easementary Right for a pathway for which the meaning
of pathway should be considered, it simply means that a passage that would
definitely not cover the entire extent of 6237 sq. ft. of land comprised in
T.S.No.2/6 and more over, the sketch enclosed with the plan in the above
suit shows that there had been a claim of narrow path about 5 to 6 feet in
the way. Further, the said suit in O.S.No.9481 of 1996 itself is not
maintainable as the above suit property comprising in T.S. No.2/4
belonging to the plaintiff has an access to road and the statement that had
no alternative path for the land is an utter falsehood, merely on a wrong
statement, the predecessor of the plaintiff had obtained an ex- parte decree
in the suit in O.S.No.9481 of 1996. In either way it is an ex-parte decree,
which at any time by the discretion of the Hon'ble Court is liable to be set
aside.
(iii). The suit property in entirety belongs to the
Corporation/defendant and the plaintiff has no right of possession or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ownership. The attempts to illegally grab the land is being curtailed by the
Corporation/defendant and the decree obtained through back door for right
of easement will not entitle the plaintiff to claim prescriptive right. The
property tax for assessment and other Title Deeds along with other
supportive documents relied on by the plaintiff pertains to his own land
comprised in T.S.No.2/4 and as far as the ramp erected in the suit property
unauthorizedly and illegally without permission will be cleared in
accordance with law.
iv).The plaintiff herein had filed a Writ Petition for a direction
against the defendant Corporation to remove the Lock and open the Gates
of the above suit property in W.P.No.19554 of 2017 and the same was
withdrawn by the petitioner on 31.07.2017. This fact was suppressed by the
plaintiff. All the actions done by the defendant Corporation is with due
process of law and on the exercise of its legitimate powers conferred on it
and as such the defendant had at no point of time, had acted high handed
and illegal. With these averments, the defendant sought for dismissal of the
suit with exemplary costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.On the pleadings of the parties and hearing the learned counsel on
either side, the following issues were framed for determination:-
(1) Whether the Plaintiff has been in possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property from the year
1951 as a rightful owner?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
declaration of his title to the Plaint schedule property?
(3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction against the Defendant restraining
them from interfering with his possession of the Plaint
schedule property?
5. On the side of the Plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked. On the side of the Defendant, DW1
was examined and Ex.D1 to D5 were marked.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
Issue No.1 :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the suit
schedule Property was acquired by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title much
earlier to the year 1951. After the suit property was made various sale
deeds in the year 1962, finally the plaintiff have become the owner of the
same by virtue of an order passed in T.O.S. No. 20 of 2009, by the Hon'ble
High Court.
8. It has been further submitted that a ramp and service
equipment have also been constructed in the portion of the land falling
S.No.2/6 and facing Pulla Reddy Avenue, with a compound wall and gate.
A sump for storing water, as well as a Bore well also exists in the said area
for more than 30 years. While being so, the Official of Corporation of
Chennai, came to the said schedule property and claimed that a portion of
the property abutting Pulla Avenue belongs to them and closed the gates of
the compound wall.
9. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff has further submitted that
without any notice and any proof of ownership, the Corporation of
Chennai have removed all belongings of the plaintiff and threatened to
take severe action against the plaintiff. Subsequently, the officers also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
attempted to park Garbage trucks and closed the gate with a tin sheet and
put up a board as the suit property is belonged to them. They have also
unloaded unused electric poles and materials hindering the entrance. The
officers also warned the plaintiff that they would resume demolition
activities in the property. Hence, he prays the relief as sought in the suit.
10. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the
lands in vast extent in Old S.Nos. 64/1 part, 64/2, 64/3, 64/4 and 65/1 and
65/2 of Aminjikarai Village was acquired by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.2297 (Health) dated 24-06-1950 which was published in the
Gazette on 10-10-1950 and vide Award No. 4/52 dated 13.08.1952 for the
purpose of formation of a road approaching the Poonamallee High Road
from Shenoy Nagar and Parks as well.
11.It has been further submitted that the Property comprised in
Old S. No. 64/2 is proposed to be maintained as a Public Park. The Award
describes the property acquired and on its boundary S. No. 64/1B is shown
on the eastern side of the S. No. 64/2 i.e. equivalent to T.S. No. 2/6. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Patta and other Revenue Records show that the property comprised in Old
S. No. 64/2, now T.S. No. 2/6 measuring an extent of 6237 sq. ft. is owned
by the Defendant Corporation vide Ex. D3. But the plaintiff/owner is of the
adjacent Property comprised in Old S. No. 64/1B presently T.S. No. 2/4
admeasuring an extent of 4207 sq.ft. only.
12. It has been further submitted that based on the order in TOS
No.20 of 2009, vide Ex.P9, the plaintiff claims title over the property in
T.S. No. 2/6, Aminjikarai Village which distinctly shows that only S. No.
64/1B, T.S. No. 2/4, Aminjikarai Village, Chennai. admeasuring an extent
of 4207 sq.ft. stands allotted to the Plaintiff herein and it has no whisper
about T.S. No. 2/6. However, the plaintiff herein has sought for suit for
Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction over the property of an
extent of 6000 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.64/1B, T.S. No. 2/6, Block No. 15,
Aminjikarai Village Chennai. In this regard, the plaintiff has also filed 16
documents from Ex-P1 to Ex-P16 but not one single document to prove his
case and establish the title over the property situated in T.S. No. 2/6, Block
No. 15, Aminjikarai Village admeasuring an extent of 6000 sq.ft.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The learned counsel for the defendant further submitted that the
Suit in O.S. No. 9481 of 1996 was filed for Easement Right for a pathway
that would definitely not cover the entire extent of 6237 sq.ft. of land
comprised in T.S. No. 2/6. Further, the said Suit in O.S. No. 9481 of 1996
itself is not maintainable as the above Suit property comprising in T.S. No.
2/4 belonging to the Plaintiff has an access to the road and the statement
that the plaintiff had no alternative path for the land T.S. No. 2/4 is an utter
falsehood while there are two roads on the Southern and Western side of
the property in T.S. No. 2/4, Therefore having pathway on two sides, the
plaintiff has played fraud and obtained a decree for easement of necessity
which is not valid and binding on anyone. As it is an Ex-parte Decree, it is
liable to be set aside. Moreover, the Decree in favour of the Plaintiff's
Predecessor is for Easement of Necessity, which at any point of time gives
only an exclusive Right of passage to the Plaintiffs land in T.S. No. 2/4 and
does not declare any title over the land in T.S. No. 2/6.
14. It has been further submitted that the Planning Permission
dated 05.02.1983 obtained by the Plaintiff's predecessor for the proposed
construction of Kalyana Mandapam clearly depicts the property is
comprised in T.S. No. 2/4 vide Ex. D4 and it has clear access to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property in T.S. No. 2/4, Aminjikarai Village via Ayyavoo Naidu Street
and Pulla Reddi Avenue Road. Therefore the Ex-parte Decree obtained in
O.S. No. 9481 of 1996 for the Easement of Necessity has been passed
without considering the real facts and circumstances.
15. The learned counsel for the defendant further submitted that the
Plaintiff claims title over the property in T.S. No. 2/6, Aminjikarai Village
through the Property Tax Assessments marked as Ex. P12 which pertains to
his own land comprised in T.S. No. 2/4 measuring only an extent of 4664
sq.ft. and does not have any relation regarding the property in T.S. No. 2/6.
As far as the ramp erected in the Suit Property comprised in T.S. No. 2/6 is
unauthorized and illegal without any permission it will be cleared in
accordance with law. Further, the Encumbrance Certificate filed by the
Plaintiff vide Ex. P7 clearly shows only regarding the property in T.S. No.
2/4 and does not have any nexus regarding the property in T.S. No. 2/6 as
claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the Statement such as CMRL had sought
for the permission from Plaintiff are all related only to his Property
comprised in T.S.No.2/4 and further, in an attempt to illegally grab the
above Suit property, the Plaintiff had focused him as the owner of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Property in T.S. No. 2/6, Aminjikarai Village unlawfully for his
enrichment.
16. It has been further submitted that the Lease Deed filed by the
Plaintiff vide Ex. P11 and the Police Complaint vide Ex. P14 are related
only to the property situated in T.S. No. 2/4, Aminjikarai Village
admeasuring an extent of 4207 sq.ft. and not the T.S. No. 2/6 as per the
prayer sought for. The plaintiff has clearly stated that he is the owner of the
property situated in T.S. No. 2/4 vide the Compromise Deed in T.O.S. No.
20 of 2009 dated 05.04.2010 and has not stated or claimed any title over
the property in T.S. No. 2/6. It is pertinent to note that the Plaintiff has not
filed any document to prove the title over the property in T.S. No. 2/6,
Aminjikarai Village admeasuring an extent of 6000 sq.ft. as per the prayer
sought for. All the documents filed by the plaintiff in the above suit are
related only to the property situated in T.S. No. 2/4, Aminjikarai Village
admeasuring an extent of 4207 sq.ft. and not the T.S. No. 2/6. Hence, the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
17. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Corporation had acquired the vast land in Old S. Nos. 64/1 part, 64/2, 64/3,
64/4 and 65/1 and 65/2 of Aminjikarai Village for formation of a road
approaching the Poonamallee High Road from Shenoy Nagar and Parks as
well vide G.O.Ms.No.2297 (Health) dated 24-06-1950 which was
published in the Gazette on 10-10-1950 and vide Award No. 4/52 dated
13.08.1952.
18. Further, it is not dispute on seeing the TSLR and other Revenue
Records that the property comprised in Old S.No.64/2, now T.S.No.2/6 to
the extent of 6237 Sq.ft is owned by the Defendant Corporation and also
that the plaintiff is the owner of the adjacent Property comprised in Old
S.No.64/1B presently T.S.No.2/4 to the extend of 4207 Sq.ft only which
was purchased by him by virtue of the sale deed registered as
Doc.No.3887/1962 dated 19.08.1962.
19. The plaintiff claims over the suit property relying upon the
Judgment in O.S. No.9481 of 1994 which is an ex-parte decree and not
decided on merit after hearing both sides and the Property Tax Assessment
order merely mentioning the Sq.Ft for 4664 sq.ft only without producing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
patta for the aforesaid extent. In so far as the suit in O.S. No.9481 of 1994
filed by the plaintiff is concerned, it is seen that the suit had been filed
seeking for easement right for the passage relating to the Old S.No.64/2
presently, T.S.No.2/6 out of 6237 Sq.ft belongs to Chennai Corporation. In
this regard, Ex-parte decree has been passed on 24.12.1996. Based on the
said Ex-parte Judgment, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to convey the
same to the Defendant Chennai Corporation seeking for separate Patta or
Survey No in his name from the defendant.
20. At the same time, even though the plaintiff claiming the title
of the suit property comprising in Old S.No.64/2 , presently T.S. No.2/6 to
the extent of 6000 Sq.ft, the plaintiff has not produced any title deed and
statutory documents to prove his right and title over the aforesaid property
for the extent of 6000 Sq.ft. Despite the plaintiff has produced the Property
Tax Assessment order issued by the defendant for the extent of 4664 Sq.ft,
there is no any receipt filed by the plaintiff whether he has paid the
property tax for the aforesaid extent from the date of decree in O.S.
No.9481 of 1994 and till the date of filing of the present suit and he has not
produced Patta for the aforesaid extent. While being so, as per the records,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vide Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, and Ex.P9, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property comprising the Old S.No.64/1B presently T.S. No.2/4 measuring
the extent of 4207 Sq.ft only. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff
cannot claim the measurement of 4664 Sq.ft showing the Property Tax
Assessment which is comprised in the Old S.No.64/2, presently T.S.
No.2/6 belongs to the defendant Corporation measuring to the extent of
6237 Sq.ft. vide G.O.Ms.No.2297 (Health) dated 24.06.1950 which was
published in the Gazette Under Section 14(5) of the Town Planning Act on
10.10.1950. Hence, it is seen that the plaintiff has been only in possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in Old S.No.64/1B presently
T.S. No.2/4 from the date of purchase of it to the extent of 4207 Sq.ft only
and the plaintiff has not produced any revenue records and oral and
documentary evidence to prove his possession and enjoyment in Old
S.No.64/2 presently, T.S. No.2/6 for either in extent of 4664 Sq.ft or 6000
sq.ft. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.
21.On perusal of the Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, and Ex.P9, as the plaintiff
is the absolute owner of the suit property in Old S.No.64/1B presently T.S.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.2/4 to the extent of 4207 Sq.Ft only, he is not entitled for the extent of
4664 Sq.ft as per Ex.P12 or 6000 Sq.ft as stated in the plaint without any
proper revenue records and oral and documentary evidence to claim the
same which is part of the portion in Old S.No.64/2 presently T.S.No.2/6
belongs to the Defendant Corporation. On perusal of G.O.Ms.No.2297
(Health) dated 24.06.1950 which was published in the Gazette Under
Section 14(5) of the Town Planning Act on 10.10.1950, the suit property in
Old S.No.64/2 presently T.S.No.2/6 is declared as Public Park to the extent
of 6237 Sq.ft. which belongs to the Defendant Chennai Corporation.
Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of declaration of his title to
the plaint schedule property belongs to the Chennai Corporation. While the
suit property belongs to the Defendant corporation, the plaintiff cannot seek
permanent injunction against the defendant. Accordingly, issue Nos.2 and
3 are answered.
22.In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
20.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Lbm
1. List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-
PW1 -Mr. N.D. Ramamurthy
2. List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-
Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Partition Deed dated-04.03.1951.
Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed registered as
Doc.No.2018/1962 dated-15.06.1962.
Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed registered as
Doc.No.2019/1962 dated 15.06.1962.
Ex.P4 is the photocopy of the sale deed registered as Doc.No.3887/1962
dated 19.08.1962.
Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the GOMs No.463 dated 14.06.1982 passed
by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 14.06.1982.
Ex.P6 is the photocopy of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.
9481/1994, XVII Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated
24.12.1996.
Ex.P7is the original Encumbrance Certificate showing entries from
1983.
Ex.P8 is the photocopy of the petition in RCOP No.333/2009 filed in
February 2009.
Ex.P9 is the photocopy of the Order passed in TOS No.20/2009 filed in
05.04.2010.
Ex.P10 is the photocopy of the letter received from Chennai Metro Rail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Authority (CMRL) dated 09.02.2012.
Ex.P11 is the original Registered Lease Deed executed by plaintiff dated
08.11.2013.
Ex.P12 is the photocopy of the property tax assessment order dated
15.09.2016 issuec by the defendant.
Ex.P13 is the photocopy of the New Item in Dinathanthi daily.
Ex.P14 is the photocopy of the Police complaint dated 22.07.2017.
Ex.P15 is the photocopy of the receipt given by the police dated
27.07.2017.
Ex.P16 is the copy of the photographs.
3. List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Defendants:-
DW-1- Mr. M. Pugazhendhi
4. List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendants:-
Ex.D1 is the true copy of the acquisition proceedings of the suit
property dated 13.08.1951.
Ex.D2 is the true copy of the Award No.4/52 dated 13.08.1952.
Ex.D3 is the computer generated TSLR extrat pertaining to the suit
property in T. S. No.2/6.(The plaintiff counsel has objected stated that
65 B affidavit is not filed)
Ex.D4 is the true copy of the Block Map of Shenoy Nagar scheme.
Ex.D5 is the original plainning permission for the property comprised
in T.S. No.2/4.
20..02..2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
lbm
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
lbm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
